Page 5166 - Week 13 - Thursday, 29 November 2018
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Clauses 113 to 141, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 142.
MR COE (Yerrabi—Leader of the Opposition) (7.54): I move amendment No 38 circulated in my name [see schedule 1 at page 5203]. This is regarding examinations and the need for guidelines. We are proposing that “may” be replaced with “must”.
MR BARR (Kurrajong—Chief Minister, Treasurer, Minister for Social Inclusion and Equality, Minister for Tourism and Special Events and Minister for Trade, Industry and Investment) (7.54): We are happy to support that. It was the government’s intent that the guidelines become a notifiable instrument, so we are happy to support this amendment.
MR RATTENBURY (Kurrajong) (7.55): Yes, we consider this to be a worthwhile amendment. Given the seriousness of the examination program, and people’s nervousness about going into an examination, it is appropriate that the guidelines be published. So we will be supporting Mr Coe’s amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 142, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 143.
MR COE (Yerrabi—Leader of the Opposition) (7.55): Similar to amendments Nos 32 and 33, amendment No 39 is a consequential amendment based on changes to section 205 and in, particular, amendment No 56. Given that it seems there is no appetite to accept amendments Nos 51, 52, 53, 54, 55 and 56, there is no need to move amendment 39.
Clause 143 agreed to.
Clause 144.
MR COE (Yerrabi—Leader of the Opposition) (7.56): I move amendment No 40 circulated in my name, which omits clause 144 [see schedule 1 at page 5203]. The select committee report, at page 66, states:
The Committee views the Inspector as having a powerful oversight role of the Commission’s operations rather than a day to day involvement in the Commission’s processes. The Committee did not envisage the legislation containing the kind of provisions described above. The requirement to report 7 days prior to a public examination with reasons appears to invite the Inspector to intervene if they disagree with the Commissioner’s decision.
This goes from being an inspector to being a gatekeeper, and that is not the role. I do not think we should have this provision. That is why the committee was of the view
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video