Page 1286 - Week 04 - Thursday, 8 May 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I would like to address a number of matters that members have raised in their comments on the bill in principle. Firstly, in relation to the Corrections Management Act, the amendments proposed in schedule 1 to expand the field of adjudicators for the purposes of section 177 of the act are necessary. Currently, adjudicators must be magistrates. However, the amendments will allow the minister to appoint anyone who is judicially qualified; that is, anyone capable of performing the duties of a judicial officer. Therefore a judge or magistrate, a retired judge or magistrate, or someone who has been a legal practitioner for five years or more and is therefore qualified to be appointed as a judicial officer may be appointed as an adjudicator.
I note that the opposition has amendments to this bill—amendments which I should observe are outside time in relation to notice provisions. There is no reason, in the government’s view, why, in principle or practice, a person should have to be a sitting judge or magistrate in order to be an adjudicator under the act. An experienced and eminent lawyer or a retired judicial officer is an entirely suitable appointee to this role. My colleague Mr Rattenbury, as Minister for Corrections, will expand on the practicalities relating to this change.
The bill repeals section 15 of the Cultural Facilities Corporation Act which requires the Cultural Facilities Corporation to give the minister a quarterly report on the operations of the act and the corporation during that quarter, and this must be presented by the minister in the Assembly.
The quarterly reporting requirement is being removed because other sources provide the same information. For example, information about the corporation’s activities is found in the annual report, seasonal calendars of events and the websites of the Canberra Theatre Centre and ACT Museums and Galleries. Annual reports of the corporation’s activities and performance will continue to be prepared as required under the Annual Reports (Government Agencies) Act. I think this is a sensible change and one that reduces a level of duplication of effort that is already being achieved in other reports placed on the public record.
In relation to the changes to the Dangerous Substances Act, this is amended to insert new section 8A to clarify the relationship between this act and the Work Health and Safety Act. Both acts give rise to corresponding duties in relation to dangerous substances, including asbestos and hazardous chemicals. New section 8A makes it clear that if a person has corresponding duties under both acts and the person complies with their duties under the Work Health and Safety Act, they are also taken to have complied with corresponding duties under the Dangerous Substances Act.
Section 8A(2) also states that to the extent of any inconsistency between the duty or power in relation to a dangerous substance under the two acts the duty or power under the Work Health and Safety Act will prevail. However, section 8A(3) provides that if the duties or powers under both acts can operate concurrently they must not be taken to be inconsistent.
I note that Mr Smyth has an amendment in relation to this proposal. The government is not able to support Mr Smyth’s amendment. The importance of the government
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video