Page 5167 - Week 13 - Thursday, 29 November 2018
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
that such provisions should be removed from the legislation as they are unnecessary if the inspector’s broad powers are as previously stated in the committee’s report.
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) (7.58): The government will not be supporting the removal of this clause. We consider its provision an important safeguard for the commission itself and for all parties, given the very serious implications of a public examination process. We believe it is rightly the role of the inspector to determine whether the commission is using its coercive and intrusive powers in accordance with its legislative obligations. It would simply be too late to determine such a breach after a public examination has already taken place.
MR COE (Yerrabi—Leader of the Opposition) (7.58): Further to my earlier comments and in response to what Mr Barr just said, clause 144 states:
If the commission intends to hold a public examination, the commission must, not less than 7 days before the day of the public examination, give a written report to the inspector stating—
(a) that the commission intends to hold a public examination; and
(b) the reasons why the commission decided to hold a public examination.
What is the purpose of this? The inspector does not have all the evidence; the inspector does not have all the information. It is unclear, and nowhere else in the legislation does it state what the inspector is meant to do with this information once they receive it. It will potentially create a false expectation that the inspector is somehow approving or has somehow endorsed what is happening. That potentially puts the inspector in an awkward position. I do not think this is good. I do not mind the idea of having reporting, but doing so in advance potentially misleads everyone into a false sense of endorsement by the inspector.
MR RATTENBURY (Kurrajong) (8.00): Earlier in the conversation I indicated that I had changed my view on some of these matters, and this is another of those areas. This is an interesting provision. Mr Coe’s comments are interesting, but this is also about that classic soft power thing. If the commissioner reports to the inspector and the inspector has a reservation, there is an opportunity for that conversation to take place. There is no formal power for them to stop it, and that would be concerning. That would bring in a second-guessing role and the like. But in this process there is room for a conversation that might be valuable. The commissioner can still proceed; there is no impediment if that is their view.
Equally, the other matter considered was whether a bar should be put in place to stop people who are being taken before a public hearing being able to take that to court to challenge it. Some of the witnesses appearing before the committee suggested we should remove the power for someone to challenge in the courts the fact that they have been called to a public hearing. My view, and ultimately the committee’s view, was that people should have the ability to take that to court and challenge that.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video