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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 10 Hansard (Wednesday, 25 August 2004) . . Page.. 4230 ..

By sticking in subsection (d)—that relevant work includes work prescribed in the regulations—we are leaving in the flexibility for the task force to look at the broader scope of work that could be undertaken and to put down the regulations and have that definition there. If there is no extra work, then the regulation does not need to be written, but I think that flexibility needs to be there. That is why I am moving this amendment that is about to be circulated.

MS GALLAGHER (Minister for Education and Training, Minister for Children, Youth and Family Support, Minister for Women and Minister for Industrial Relations) (10.00): The government is happy to support Ms Dundas’s amendment. As she explained, it was important to keep the subsection “work prescribed under the regulations” under this definition of renovation work. Whilst we are happy to accept Mrs Cross’s other criteria, it was important to keep that. That is what Ms Dundas’s amendment achieves.

MR STEFANIAK (10.00): Actually, I have thrown it away because both the government and Ms Dundas have made an amendment, but I was simply going to delete (c), which would have done what Mrs Cross suggested she thought the government was doing, but it appears that time has moved on. In relation to clause 5, we are ending up here with a pretty good regime and a pretty good process in terms of education, in terms of an expert committee and now in terms of that expert committee, as part of the report, having to bring in regulations and suggestions as to what the law should be.

With reference to what I said earlier, about cautioning members about a six-month period, which is fundamentally all we have got to introduce clause 5, we have seen some other amendments here. Given that we are now in the process of putting in a very good regime—significant problems have been raised with the opposition and by other members, which I have already talked about—I feel it would be preferable if clause 5 did not proceed. The bases have now been covered and there could be problems in relation to (a) the time frame and (b) whether this clause will cause problems we do not foresee—or, indeed, are foreseeable—that cannot be overcome in a six-month period, which is when this clause comes into operation.

Ms Dundas’s amendment to Mrs Cross’s amendment agreed to.

Mrs Cross’s amendment, as amended, to Ms Gallagher’s amendment agreed to.

Clause 5 of Ms Gallagher’s amendment No 3, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 6 of Ms Gallagher’s amendment No 3.

MRS CROSS (10.04): I move amendment No 4, which amends Ms Gallagher’s amendment No 3, circulated in my name on the sand coloured paper [see schedule 3 at page 4283].

There have been industry concerns that there was no prescribed date regarding which houses we were referring to in the ACT. On consultation with ADFA, and industry, I decided to have a definition of high-risk premises: that high-risk premises contain a building the construction of which was started before 1 January 1988. This seemed to be welcomed by a number of industry groups in the ACT, which I spoke to today, who

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