Page 3634 - Week 08 - Thursday, 19 August 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
provisions. Including information on the notification that an application for revocation can be made is practical and reasonable.
However, it is the government’s view that it would be preferable if this was further amended to clarify the form that an application must take. We understand that the amendment moved by Ms Le Couteur only anticipates written submissions being considered, and that is clearly preferable from an administrative perspective. To pick up on this and to avoid confusion, the amendment to section 52A(2)(c) should be further clarified to read that the practitioner may apply in writing to the registrar to revoke the suspension.
Accordingly, I have circulated an amendment to Ms Le Couteur’s amendment. That amendment is to insert the words “in writing” after “apply”, just to further clarify the intent of this amendment. I formally move my amendment No 1 to Ms Le Couteur’s amendment [see schedule 3 at page 3703].
MR SESELJA (Molonglo—Leader of the Opposition) (11.52): As I flagged earlier, the amendment is acceptable to the opposition. It seems to add some procedural fairness issues and we are pleased to support it. Mr Barr’s amendment appears to clarify that by making sure that it is in writing. We have no issue with that either. We are happy to support Mr Barr’s amendment and Ms Le Couteur’s amendment.
MS LE COUTEUR (Molonglo) (11.52): With regard to Mr Barr’s amendment to my first amendment—adding the words “in writing” to clarify that the licensed practitioner may apply for a revocation of the suspension in writing—I have no problems. It is an excellent amendment.
Mr Barr’s amendment to Ms Le Couteur’s proposed amendment agreed to.
Ms Le Couteur’s amendment, as amended, agreed to.
MS LE COUTEUR (Molonglo) (11.53): I now wish to move amendment No 2 which has been circulated in my name [see schedule 2 at page 3702]. While recognising Mr Barr’s amendment to my previous amendment, in my opinion that is not a reason to discard the rest of my amendments. They are still relevant. I believe that they would, in fact, complement Mr Barr’s amendment. As I have said, they make it clear that the person whose licence has been suspended has a right to be heard and considered as part of the registrar’s decision making process. On balance, I believe that my second amendment should also be passed.
MR BARR (Molonglo—Minister for Education and Training, Minister for Planning, Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation and Minister for Gaming and Racing) (11.53): The government will not be supporting this further amendment. We do not believe it is necessary to give effect to procedural fairness. The registrar is subject to all of the standard constraints inherent in making administrative decisions. The current clauses affect all automatic suspensions, some of which are tied to defined but not discretionary events that affect a person’s eligibility to hold a licence.
The current provisions do not restrict the registrar to considering only particular information in making a decision on revocation. Information may come from many
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video