Page 424 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 27 June 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
VOCATIONAL TRAINING BILL 1989
Debate resumed from 31 May 1989, on motion by Mr Whalan:
That this Bill be agreed to in principle.
DR KINLOCH (4.07): Mr Speaker, basically the Assembly should congratulate the drafters of this tidy-up Bill, the Vocational Training Bill 1989, which replaces a range of legislation, a whole series of Bills and amendments dating from 1936. In doing so I also thank the Minister for the explanatory memorandum. We are all new at this business. Again I echo Mr Wood's point about the historic activities in which we are all engaged day after day. This is the first time that I have had a responsibility to look at such a Bill and make such a comment. And I thank, indeed, the Minister's public service staff members for their careful and, may I stress, impartial briefing. I very much admired the way the Minister and his staff went about the business of introducing this Bill.
The Residents Rally supports almost all of the Bill in principle, especially the high commitment to vocational and apprentice training which we saw in the Minister's original presentation of the Bill. I would stress also that the Bill is splendidly free of sexism. In noting that, I also note that the Minister referred in particular to future constructive measures to assist girls and women, the disabled, migrants and other groups disadvantaged in access to training and employment.
I note in the Bill the excellent concern, a careful concern, for procedure concerning grievances. Here obviously apprentices or trainees or people beginning vocational employment can have a chance to raise any problems that might face them. I hope that will be very fully explained to them as a result of the Bill. There is also in the Bill a useful structure vis-a-vis committees, penalties and inspectors. Again I am grateful for the advice on that matter. I have drawn the attention of the Acting Clerk to a minor drafting error - quite a small matter - and he has noted that.
Another problem for me - it could be that it is a technicality only, but I would welcome some consideration of it - is clause 25(3) on page 10. I am not necessarily quarrelling with this; I just would welcome some explanation for the statement that "a person who is not a public servant shall not be appointed to be the Chief Executive". I am just wondering why the public at large should not be available to be appointed to that post. Perhaps that is a technical thing that needs to be explained.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .