Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 2 Hansard (29 February) . . Page.. 343 ..
The Assembly voted -
AYES, 3 NOES, 14 Mr Kaine Mr Berry Mr Osborne Ms Carnell Ms Tucker Mr Corbell Mr Cornwell Mr Hargreaves Mr Hird Mr Humphries Mr Moore Mr Quinlan Mr Rugendyke Mr Smyth Mr Stanhope Mr Stefaniak Mr WoodQuestion so resolved in the negative.
Amendment (by Ms Tucker ) proposed:
Clause 23, page 13, line 26, proposed new Schedule 1, clause 1B, omit the clause, substitute the following clause:
" '1B Qualifications
'(1) The Executive must appoint 2 standing commissioners with knowledge or experience in 1 or more of the following fields:
(a) commerce;
(b) economics;
(c) industry;
(d) law;
(e) public administration.
'(2) The Executive must appoint 1 standing commissioner with knowledge or experience in consumer rights or the provision of services to disadvantaged persons.
'(3) The Executive may only appoint as associate commissioner for a particular investigation a person who has knowledge or experience related to the investigation.".
Amendment (by Mr Quinlan ) to Ms Tucker's amendment proposed:
Clause 23, proposed new Schedule 1, subclause 1B (1), omit the subclause.
MS TUCKER
(11.58): I will speak to my amendment and Mr Quinlan's amendment. My amendment No. 7 expands the qualifications required of commissioners and goes to the heart of the issue of how representative the commission should be of broader community interests. The Chief Minister's Committee report said there should be five commissioners with broad representation. The Government, in its response, said that five was too many and that three should be enough, with provision for further associate
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .