Page 3203 - Week 09 - Tuesday, 19 August 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
we are to say that we wish to make sure that people are viable and help them to do that, it needs to be overt that the option, the discretion, not to go down that kind of path is in the guidelines, in the rules and in the legislation. I thank ACTCOSS for this suggestion; it is a good one. We will make sure that it is not only in there but also out there in the conversations that we have with people.
In relation to amendment No 11, the government will amend section 31A and 31B to permit a review by the AAT of decisions to register an organisation under new section 25A or to deregister an organisation under new section 25T (1). This will provide further safeguards for the providers and ensure that the commissioner is sure of her ground before taking action under these sections. It is another check or balance, depending on which way you want to put it. I commend those amendments to the Assembly.
DR FOSKEY (Molonglo) (12.17): I have already spoken to government amendment No 9. In relation to amendment No 10, it looks to me as if this amendment is there to correct a drafting error. The sections as previously written, before amendment, could have been read to mean that any breach of conditions, no matter how minor or accidental, would require the commissioner to deregister the provider. Of course, it is very good and important that that gets amended.
In relation to government amendment No 11, it is really good to see that the government is agreeing to provide reasons for its actions. It would be very good to see this provision written more regularly into legislation that governs government actions.
MR SESELJA (Molonglo—Leader of the Opposition) (12.18): We will be supporting government amendments 9, 10 and 11. Amendment 9 makes intervention guidelines a disallowable instrument. This obviously will give the Assembly greater scrutiny. I understand that providers sought this change. The intervention guidelines can have significant implications as to who will manage providers and whether or how there may be takeover of providers and dissolution of their assets. These important rules should be subject to scrutiny. It is disappointing that the government did not take this approach initially. Unfortunately, it took a community backlash to prevent them from pushing through what would have been quite an unaccountable regime. We welcome the change.
Government amendment 10, a change to 25T (2), gives the commissioner discretion on registration. Now he “may” deregister for a breach—not “must”. This allows appropriate discretion to not deregister an entity where there has been only a minor or temporary breach of registration criteria or failure to continue to satisfy eligibility criteria. Once again, this was a change suggested by ACTCOSS and we believe it is a reasonable one.
Government amendment 11 requires a statement of reasons for removal from the register. This is a reasonable control; it ensures that an argument must be put and published. This will ensure that the commissioner is more careful and will make robust decisions on the sensitive question of deregistering providers. We will therefore support all three government amendments.
Amendments agreed to.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .