Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2011 Week 07 Hansard (Tuesday, 28 June 2011) . . Page.. 2628 ..
amendments are in fact the ones that are in response to the scrutiny of bills committee and go to insert the “on reasonable grounds” condition that I spoke about earlier.
I should, for the record, advise that the previous amendment that we supported—and I thank members for doing so—was in fact to ensure that the enactment of the bill is taken to be 1 July, to avoid financial implications for the club industry that may arise if the bill did not commence on 1 July. I apologise to members. I just jumped ahead a page in my running sheet. I note no-one interjected to advise me.
Nonetheless I do, again, apologise to members and seek their support for these particular amendments that I note also mirror amendments that Ms Hunter has put forward and that were recommended by the scrutiny of bills committee. I note the chair of the committee is in the chamber as well at this point. I thank the committee for their advice and seek the Assembly’s support for these amendments.
MR SMYTH (Brindabella) (12.01): They are agreed.
MS HUNTER (Ginninderra—Parliamentary Convenor, ACT Greens) (12.01): The Greens did draft similar amendments, as the minister has said, to ensure the test for the commissioner’s decision making was explicitly clear and consistent throughout the bill. These amendments achieve the same outcome, which reflects the scrutiny of bills committee’s concerns, and ensure we are consistent with other bills passed by this place. You will remember that I moved amendments to a public sector management bill earlier in the year to do the same thing. It is appropriate that we are consistent and ensure that there can never be any doubt as to the standard the parliament intends to achieve for delegated decision-making functions. We will be supporting these amendments.
Amendments agreed to.
Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 19 agreed to.
MR SMYTH (Brindabella) (12.02): I will be opposing this clause. Again, this is creating some angst in the community as to what “club directors acting in good faith” truly means. I think I have made it quite clear from the start that we all believe that directors should act in good faith, but the problem is that there has been nothing cited really to justify the need for this provision. I quote from the ClubsACT letter to the minister:
More importantly, there has been no information provided as to how this bill would work in practice and very fundamental questions remain unanswered.
One of those questions is, according to the letter:
What Actions Would Represent a Breach of Section 148A?