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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 04 Hansard (Thursday, 1 April 2004) . . Page.. 1549 ..

“unsatisfactory professional conduct”. Members will note that the last provision of both definitions enables regulations to be made that could effectively expand the definitions. I think this is a totally inappropriate arrangement, given that both definitions are the basis for taking of disciplinary action.

The benefit of the current structure of the bill is that the disciplinary grounds are clearly stated so that registered architects know absolutely the grounds that could result in disciplinary action. Mrs Dunne’s amendments propose the removal of these clearly stated grounds and placing them in a definition that can be adjusted by regulation. This introduces an element of uncertainty to the disciplinary provisions and would mean that the grounds for disciplinary action sit in two places. This has the potential to complicate and confuse the process and is, in the government’s view, a backward step. This is particularly so when one of the principles of harmonisation is to introduce a more transparent disciplinary process. This amendment would clearly fail that test, and the government will not be supporting it.

MS DUNDAS (5.31): The Democrats cannot support these amendments either. My understanding is that, while the amendments reflect the content of the New South Wales act, they do not fit with the intentions of the ACT bill; nor do they reflect the approach taken by the bill in general. My understanding is that these amendments would drastically change the meaning of “disciplinary grounds”, meaning that the board could not take action—even very minor action such as a reprimand—unless the misconduct of an architect was so great as to justify the suspension or cancellation of their registration. I believe this could hamstring the board so that it could take only an all or nothing approach to disciplining architects. Thus the board would be unable to take disciplinary action on minor grounds, where a reprimand or small fine would be the most appropriate way to deal with a transgression, rather than a full suspension or cancellation of registration.

MS TUCKER (5.32): The Greens will also be opposing these amendments. While the argument others have put is that these amendments bring things into closer harmony with New South Wales, it is important to understand that none of the legislation is entirely in harmony with that in other states. This bill specifies quite closely a regime for disciplinary action. By creating a definition of “professional misconduct” in this way, these amendments, if successful, would in essence limit action to offences of misconduct serious enough to warrant deregistration. In other words, no disciplinary action would be possible until offences reach such a level of seriousness.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 41 agreed to.

Clause 42.

MRS DUNNE (5.33): I move amendment No 3 on the pink paper circulated in my name [see schedule 1 at page 1612].

I will move this amendment because it gives me an opportunity to raise an issue of particular concern to me which is outside the provisions you would normally find in an act. One of the things that causes considerable concern to me and to others is clause

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