Page 6069 - Week 18 - Thursday, 12 December 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Humphries: What does the "f" stand for?
MR COLLAERY: It goes with another Greek word in the same provision. If members look at that paragraph, they will see the word "applicatyion", which I guess is a Greek resort or something. Nevertheless, we will correct that somewhere along the legislative path.
I would suggest that this provision is a hold-over that has been put in without a great degree of conviction. I do not support it. I am really anxious to give Mr Humphries a convincing win at this stage of the Assembly's life. He has long and truly argued - I can reveal a Cabinet confidence for once - against the term "fit and proper". He has always stood against that term, and he will not disagree with that. He questioned it even in the Weapons Bill. He is, on this issue, a true libertarian, and I must say that, with the onset again of his facial growth, he has come back to his antagonism towards these illiberal provisions. So, we will give Mr Humphries a solid win today. The Rally supports his amendments.
MR MOORE (5.22): I think it is appropriate that we support Mr Humphries' amendments. Having listened to the argument of the Attorney-General, it seems to me that the most significant factor is that, for a person to get into the position of being protected by the courts, the person still has to go to court. Whilst they may well be protected by the court, I think that in this circumstance it is not necessary to have that provision in the legislation, and that it would be inappropriate to take them to court.
On a slightly different matter, whilst it is important for us to have vehicles that do not carry ozone depleting substances - - -
Mr Jensen: Fit and proper air-conditioners.
MR MOORE: Yes, fit and proper air-conditioners. I must say that my earlier comment in jest about Mercedes cars does not really carry the full weight of conviction.
MR DUBY (5.23): The arguments that were put by the Attorney about the requirement for having a "fit and proper" clause in the Bill's provisions for licensing simply do not hold water. If he reads the Bill, he will see that it says that the applicant must have completed an approved course or examination or be accredited, et cetera. It also says that the applicant must not have "been convicted of an offence against this Act or a corresponding law".
This, of course, would cover the miscreant refrigeration mechanic who has been convicted of offences under this legislation, but that is the sort of person that has been put up as an example of who would be stopped and excluded. So, it appears to me that this miscreant mechanic would
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .