Page 5179 - Week 13 - Thursday, 29 November 2018
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MR COE (Yerrabi—Leader of the Opposition) (8.54): I move amendment No 89 circulated in my name [see schedule 1 at page 5207].
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) (8.55): My understanding is that amendments Nos 89 and 90 are consequential to having agreed on amendment No 15, so we will be supporting them.
MR RATTENBURY (Kurrajong) (8.55): On the basis that these are consequential from the earlier discussion, we are happy to support these amendments as well.
Amendment agreed to.
MR COE (Yerrabi—Leader of the Opposition) (8.56): I move amendment No 90 circulated in my name [see schedule 1 at page 5207].
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 285, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 286 to 301, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 302.
MR COE (Yerrabi—Leader of the Opposition) (8.56): I move amendment No 91 circulated in my name [see schedule 1 at page 5208]. This amendment puts in place a review on 1 July 2022. Whilst our preference would be 2021, we are happy with 2022. I gather that is acceptable to those opposite as well.
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) (8.57): That is correct, and we are happy to support this amendment.
MR RATTENBURY (Kurrajong) (8.57): We are happy to support this amendment as well. There was some discussion, as Mr Coe touched on, about whether we should do this after two years or three years. We took the view that three years was probably right. You could probably look at it either way, but we want to have enough material on which to base a worthwhile review. If, in the meantime, through the role of the commissioner, the inspector or the committee set up in the Assembly to have oversight, matters come up that are problematic, I do not think we need to wait till the review to fix things. This Assembly should be very open to that.
The other positive thing in Mr Coe’s amendment is that this sets a review every five years. That is worthwhile because once these things are up and running they can just roll on. Having a review every five years is worthwhile. Times will change; expectations and practices will evolve. Having regular reconsideration for something so powerful and potentially so impactful is a good move. We are pleased to support this amendment.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video