Page 4617 - Week 15 - Tuesday, 6 December 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
to have a requirement to post out a code of practice. This sounds like amendments thought up on the run, which is something we are not unfamiliar with. Mrs Carnell, last week, was kind enough - and I thank her for this - to give me a copy of a running sheet of her suggestions for amendments. At that stage, they were not written out in the form in which we have them today. They were written out as the policy suggestions that Mrs Carnell had for amendments and that - - -
Mrs Carnell: Because they had not come back from legislative drafting. You know why.
MR CONNOLLY: Indeed. I understand that. I am not being critical. In fact, I am thanking you for showing me in advance what your policy concerns were. One of the reasons we adjourned the debate was to let the working party have another meeting. I provided to the working party Mrs Carnell's policy concerns. I advised Mrs Carnell of the outcome of this the other day, and I provided a copy of that advice to Ms Szuty and Mr Stevenson today.
Basically, I am advised by my department that there was a meeting of that working party last Wednesday, as was expected. The meeting was attended by representatives from the broadest possible spectrum of those industries that undertake skin penetration procedures in some form. They included acupuncturists, beauty therapists and tattooists. The meeting discussed clause by clause those amendments proposed by Mrs Carnell. It was agreed unanimously that the Bill should stand as is, except for the proposed amendments to clauses 38 and 41, both of which were supported. Given that that is not what the Government originally wanted, but given that the industry consultative group has said, "Yes, Mrs Carnell's proposed changes to those clauses are sensible", the Government is going to say, "Yes, we have consulted with the industry group. Mrs Carnell's amendments are sensible. We are supporting them".
In relation to the balance of Mrs Carnell's amendments, we are going to do exactly the same thing. We are going to listen to what the industry group said. The industry group said, "Support the legislation as is". In fact, I am told that they made a point of congratulating public health staff in the Government Service on an excellent piece of groundbreaking legislation, which indeed it is. They then expressed some other concerns about how the registration issue will be dealt with, and that is something to be addressed administratively over the coming months. We will make sure that we pay attention to that.
Madam Speaker, the Government will not be supporting Mrs Carnell's amendments which are not supported by the industry working group, but we will be supporting Mrs Carnell's amendments which are supported by the industry working group. This is an amendment which is not supported by the industry working group. It raises the interesting concept of whether we should do this with all codes of practice. If we do it with codes of practice, why do we not do it with regulations, which are of more immediate impact on a business, and why do we not do it with the Act itself, which is of absolute impact on a business?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .