Page 3889 - Week 10 - Thursday, 27 August 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
the public record all the details about it. If you want to talk about naming and shaming in public, this is a good way to go about it. In a funny kind of sense, in an obtuse kind of sense, the mere fact now that this can be a disallowable instrument means that industries and components within it now run the risk of actually getting themselves named in this place because a workplace inspector thinks they are a dangerous place to be but those opposite do not think it is a dangerous place to be. I look forward to that debate.
I look forward to the debate where the opposition says, “No, this is not a hazardous workplace,” yet a person who is qualified looks at it and says, “Somebody could get killed here.” But, no, these blokes opposite know much better than that. They know a hell of a lot more than a qualified inspector would because, in fact, they are experts in train crashes.
Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1, amendment No 1.9, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 1, amendments Nos 1.10 to 1.18, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Schedule 1, amendment No 1.19.
MR HARGREAVES (Brindabella—Minister for Disability and Housing, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Multicultural Affairs, Minister for Industrial Relations and Minister for Corrections) (5.52), by leave: I move amendments Nos 1 and 2 circulated in my name together [see schedule 3 at page 3906].
I table explanatory statements in respect of those amendments. The government will be moving two amendments arising from comments from the scrutiny of bills committee report No 10 released on 10 August 2009. Each amendment has been made to clarify the objectives of the bill. These amendments are to clause 1.19, section 211, which deals with the use of protected information. These amendments will ensure that the intention of the provision is unambiguous and does not go further than necessary to achieve the purpose of the legislation.
Amendment No 1 removes the words “under a summons or subpoena”. The scrutiny committee advised that these words restrict the operation of this section and this amendment will ensure that the disclosure of information to a court will be permitted in all circumstances. It is accepted that the provision, as amended, will fulfil the essential purposes of permitting disclosure without narrowly restricting the disclosures to only those instances where a summons or a subpoena has been issued in relation to legal proceedings.
The second amendment changes the definition of corresponding law by removing the words “whether or not the law corresponds or substantially corresponds to this act”. This means that a corresponding law for the use of protected information can only be a law of the commonwealth or a state that is declared by regulation. This will ensure that it is clear that it is not the government’s intention to permit or allow data-matching by another government agency with which the relevant information is shared.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .