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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 6 Hansard (15 June) . . Page.. 1898 ..

MR SPEAKER: Yes, I understand. So you cannot move No 10.

MR STEFANIAK (Minister for Education and Attorney-General) (5.31): Mr Speaker, I formally move amendment No 8 circulated in my name [see schedule 1, part 1, at page 1971]. This amendment to clause 17 ensures that a person's appointment as a security officer may be terminated if he or she is no longer competent to act as such. It reflects a suggestion made by the scrutiny of bills committee.

MR STANHOPE (Leader of the Opposition) (5.32): This amendment relates to the sacking of a security officer. I just want to note that I just think this is a very interesting approach that I have not seen before. Subclause (3) sets out the grounds on which the chief executive may, in writing, revoke the appointment of a person as a security officer. It is interesting to note for the record that the amendment inserts after paragraph (c) of subclause (3) the following new paragraph (ca):

I have to say that I am not entirely sure what it means but I think it is a rather novel approach to determining whether or not somebody should be sacked.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 18 agreed to.

Clause 19.

MR SPEAKER: Mr Stanhope, I think you have an amendment to clause 19.

MR STANHOPE (Leader of the Opposition) (5.33): Mr Speaker, this amendment is consequential and therefore I will not be moving it.

Clause 19 agreed to.

Remainder of bill, by leave, taken as a whole.

MR RUGENDYKE (5.34): Mr Speaker, I move my amendment No 6 [see schedule 3 at page 1980]. This amendment removes the definition of "frisk search".

Amendment agreed to.

Remainder of bill, as a whole, as amended, agreed to.

Ordered that clause 13 be reconsidered.

Clause 13-reconsideration.

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