Page 6064 - Week 18 - Thursday, 12 December 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Kaine: Well, there are 70 occasions on which we should remove it.
MR WOOD: You might tell me all the times that you are aware of - I am sure you would be aware of it if it had been abused - that the use of that phrase has caused difficulties.
Mr Collaery: Yes, Wendy Bacon. Wendy Bacon was refused a practising certificate because she was not fit and proper.
Mr Connolly: Yes, because she had accepted crook bail. That was the finding. And she had lied.
MR WOOD: Gentlemen, you may carry on your debate behind me; but it is not a matter that has come to our attention in respect of ACT legislation in the time that we have been here, and I have not been aware of the provision being abused. It is an entirely appropriate phrase to incorporate into this legislation. It is used in existing legislation; for example, in relation to doctors, dentists, chiropractors, nurses, plumbers, builders, architects, casinos, drivers' vocational training and a whole range of matters.
Most recently, to my knowledge, it was used when you people had some responsibility for framing the Weapons Bill. It is certainly not an uncommon feature of our legislation, and I do not see that anything is gained by taking it out of this legislation.
MR HUMPHRIES (5.08): I just want to respond briefly to a couple of points that the Minister raised. I certainly would not say that there are no circumstances in which a "fit and proper" test should be used. The Minister cited a very good example of a case where it should be used, and that is where we are talking about a Casino Surveillance Authority surveying people who might operate a casino. I would certainly - 100 per cent - back, in those circumstances, a discretion about who operates a casino. But that is a very different circumstance. That is where a person is tendering for a right to operate a highly sensitive operation.
We are talking here about refrigerator mechanics. What possible reason could we have to have to say that a refrigerator mechanic is not a fit and proper person to hold a licence? The Minister is listening to his advisers, who find such powers convenient. It obviates the need to come up with some tangible, concrete reason why a person should not be able to carry out their livelihood. But that is not good enough. It is not good enough for a party which purports to be in favour of social justice. If you are in favour of social justice, then give people the right to demonstrate whether they can or cannot meet the criteria that they need to meet to get a particular licence under this legislation.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .