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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 04 Hansard (Thursday, 1 April 2004) . . Page.. 1548 ..

substantially in order to allay the concerns of the industry. My understanding of the problem is that there was some debate over the specific meaning of “supervise” and what that word means in terms of the responsibilities of a nominee. The decision to omit these clauses and replace them with quite simple wording seems to be a reasonable way forward, as the provision that a nominee must ensure compliance with the act seems to be sufficient for the operation of the act.

MRS DUNNE (5.26): The opposition will be supporting these amendments. I think it goes most of the way, if not all the way, to addressing the concerns I have about the role of nominees. I think that, whilst doing that, it is something we need to be mindful of in the operation and the eventual review of this act to ensure that, while this provision works well for customer protection and consumer protection, it does not put an onus of impact on employees rather than partners, or members of a board. I think the minister’s proposed amendments will address all of those things; I hope that is the case. This is certainly an improvement on what is there already.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause 30, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 31 to 40, by leave, taken together and agreed to.

Clause 41.

MRS DUNNE (5.27): I move amendment No 2 circulated in my name [see schedule 1 at page 1612].

This amendment seeks to put more clarity into the disciplinary provisions in this act. Disciplinary provisions are of course very important and this attempts to describe more fully what disciplinary provisions should be looked at under the act. I have some concerns with the current structure. Again, this is a very open-ended and vague way of dealing with discipline. This takes away the general open and vague provisions that currently exist and substitutes descriptions of “professional misconduct” and “unsatisfactory professional conduct” that relate more precisely to specific actions that may be a problem under this legislation.

This amendment provides clarity and certainty for practitioners and consumers. I think it would be a better way of proceeding. This again reflects the provisions in the New South Wales act, which I have been seeking to harmonise as much as possible, for ease of swapping between jurisdictions. One of the things that bedevils us in federation is that people may operate their businesses across jurisdictions and there are different sets of rules in each jurisdiction, which adds to the cost of running a business. I think that wherever we can minimise that we should do so.

MR CORBELL (Minister for Health and Minister for Planning) (5.29): The government will not be supporting this amendment as it has what the government considers to be quite a detrimental effect on the operations of the disciplinary provisions in the bill. There are two key reasons why this amendment and the subsequent amendment Mrs Dunne proposes to move should not be supported. The first point I would like to make relates to the proposed definitions of “professional misconduct” and

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