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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 03 Hansard (Thursday, 11 March 2004) . . Page.. 1129 ..

Under existing laws disciplinary incidents can only be handled by a lengthy disciplinary process, which can result in only two outcomes: a disciplinary sanction or no further action. This clearly fails to provide the option that is in the demerit point system of educating licensees in relation to their failure to comply with the required standards. To suggest that the demerit point system is not practical fails to understand the significant improvement it makes to the existing system. It is more accountable because it is transparent, and it is clearly attached, for most of the demerits, to the codes and Australian standards relevant to each occupation.

There are some other demerit points that deal with administrative matters that are important to the effective management of information critical to the licensing system. Unlike the existing multiple systems that can address minor breaches only by commencing a long and involved disciplinary action, the demerit point system enables corrective action to be taken at an early stage. The information collected under the demerit system is no different to that which is already collected and assessed; the proposal simply allows for more appropriate and effective action to be taken. The government will not be supporting the amendment.

MS DUNDAS (6.21): Mrs Dunne’s amendment is to omit schedule 2 of the regulations. This schedule contains the list of demerit points for the various disciplinary grounds. I will not be supporting this amendment. The source of these disciplinary grounds was discussed at some length at the roundtable discussion, and it should be noted that the disciplinary grounds relate back to Australian Standards. Yes, there are some circumstances for that, and they may appear vague at first glance. But terms like “proper” and “skilful” are in fact extensively defined in other legislation and relate directly to Australian Standards.

I understand the concerns that came through from the building industry about this schedule, but it reflects the Building Code of Australia and Australian Standards. I think that, on balance, this is the best way to support the demerit system and to clarify what the demerit system is about. Some arguments have been put forward for a code of practice, and the major concern there is about self-regulation of the industry. This schedule as a regulation can be updated, as the building code is updated if necessary, but it will always reflect back on the Building Code. If the Building Code continues to be updated, then that can be reflected in these regulations.

It may be that we come back and look at particular items individually in this schedule, and maybe some of them might need finetuning. But these regulations are the result of a large amount of work, and the officers of the department deserve thanks for their work in codifying the disciplinary agreements in the schedule as they are reflected from the Building Code and the Australian Standards.

MS TUCKER (6.23): The Greens will be opposing this amendment. It would remove all the regulations that have in effect been imported into the bill from previous legislation or that tie directly into the standards that apply in the industry. It is a pointless exercise that would simply create enormous work for industry contributors and government officers. It seems fairly clear to me that the rejection of these regulations is based, at least in part, on a lack of comprehension. In any event, given the fact that we have voted against the delayed commencement date, deleting these regulations now would create chaos.

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