Page 2782 - Week 11 - Tuesday, 20 October 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Moore: They are your back-of-the-envelope amendments, not ours.
MR BERRY: They are amendments which are foreshadowed. I do not mind considering Mr Moore's Bill once he has sat down and considered properly the implications of the board pursuing whatever amendments might succeed.
Mr Moore: Whose amendments were tabled first and circulated days ago and put in a report?
MR BERRY: I am trying to explain to you. If you cannot understand what I am trying to explain, go back to sleep; other people will understand. It may take longer than 28 days to deal with some of those very important administrative proposals. Therefore, the proposal which has been put forward by Mr Moore should be resisted. In any event, it strikes me as rather odd to have a requirement to do it in 28 days and that nothing will happen if it is not done in 28 days.
MR MOORE (9.14): Madam Speaker, I want to respond to Mr Berry. A very good comparison to this is an issue that was raised in the Estimates Committee over FOI. There was a statutory requirement for a 30-day response to FOI. Whilst there is no penalty, the officers take their statutory responsibility very seriously. That issue has been raised. Although, unfortunately, they have not been able to meet that with FOI on a quite large number of occasions, they certainly feel the pressure and certainly feel compelled to try to meet those deadlines. We respect the attitude of public servants in doing their very best to meet a set of parameters. It has been done very successfully with the FOI Bill. This is exactly the same sort of approach and it is entirely appropriate. If a particular issue takes more than 28 days at some stage, no penalty will apply. But it would be appropriate for members, perhaps through the select committee as we did with FOI, to ask questions as to why such a thing is taking so long. I think it is a perfectly reasonable section to have in the Act. There are precedents.
MR BERRY (Minister for Health, Minister for Industrial Relations and Minister for Sport (9.15): Nothing has been added to the debate by Mr Moore's response.
Question put:
That the proposed new clause be added to the Bill (Mr Moore's amendment).
The Assembly voted -
AYES, 9 NOES, 8
Mrs Carnell Mr Berry
Mr Cornwell Mr Connolly
Mr De Domenico Ms Ellis
Mr Humphries Ms Follett
Mr Kaine Mrs Grassby
Mr Moore Mr Lamont
Mr Stevenson Ms McRae
Ms Szuty Mr Wood
Mr Westende
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .