Page 5852 - Week 18 - Tuesday, 10 December 1991

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .

---

I have no difficulty with Mr Prowse's amendment. It does not achieve anything, in my view. It is an enjoinder; it is a message. You cannot force a board not minded to make a decision to make a decision. What Mr Prowse should have done, if that was in his mind, was to make a failure to make a decision a decision for the purposes of the AAT Act.

MR PROWSE (10.18): We are suggesting that the board should reconsider their decision. It is an enjoinder. It is a request for the board to take some action in a timely manner. This is not a legal argument, as far as I am concerned. I am suggesting that, as a basic principle, the board be given some guidance within the Bill. It is all very well for legalities to be brought into the debate. May I suggest that it would have been nice to have had Mr Collaery's advice a few hours ago.

I am suggesting that the board reconsider their decision. That is not forcing them to change their decision. That is not forcing them to take a decision. It is asking the board to review the matter. In my understanding of English, that is all that has to happen. We are giving the board members an indication of the intent of this Bill. If Mr Collaery wishes to write legislation that is clear of all imputations and possible misrepresentations, he would do well to start on other Bills that are more serious than this one.

Amendment agreed to.

Remainder of Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Question put:

That this Bill, as amended, be agreed to.

The Assembly voted -

AYES, 16  NOES, 1 

Mr Berry Mr Stevenson
Mr Collaery 
Mr Connolly
Mr Duby
Ms Follett
Mrs Grassby
Mr Humphries
Mr Jensen
Mr Kaine
Dr Kinloch
Ms Maher
Mr Moore
Mrs Nolan
Mr Prowse
Mr Stefaniak
Mr Wood

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

---

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .