Page 4869 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
supporting the decision. Where the person seeking amendment of their registration has named an employer and the commissioner has amended the person’s registration, the commissioner will tell the named employer, in writing, that the person’s registration has been amended and the details of the amendment. The commissioner will not tell the named employer of the reasons for the amendment. This amendment addresses comments made during consultation.
The bill does not provide for surrendering of registration. Government amendment 59 remedies this by creating a new division which provides the registered person with the process for surrendering their registration. This amendment also compels the commissioner to tell the employer, if any, that the person’s registration has been surrendered. This amendment addresses comments made by the scrutiny of bills committee.
To ensure that children remain a paramount consideration during implementation of the checking scheme, government amendment 65 ensures that the checking of employees and volunteers working in youth justice facilities will occur during the first year of the implementation.
Government amendment 66 ensures that employees and volunteers working in justice facilities for adults will be checked during the last year of the checking scheme. This amendment addresses comments made during the consultation process.
Finally, government amendment 69 ensures that there are no references to peer support programs in the bill. This amendment addresses comments made during the consultation.
Debate interrupted in accordance with standing order 74 and the resumption of the debate made an order of the day for a later hour.
Sitting suspended from 12.28 to 2 pm.
Questions without notice
Emergency Services Agency—headquarters
MR SESELJA: My question is to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. Minister, in papers obtained by the opposition under FOI, there is an expert report in November 2005 from quantity surveyors Wilde and Woollard, setting out a cost-benefit analysis of the proposed relocation of all the Emergency Services Agency’s functions at Fairbairn. The report from Wilde and Woollard concluded that the proposal would be “substantially negative” and that “the proposed relocation is not financially beneficial to the ACT government”. There is also a report in September 2006 from architects HBO+EMTB, which concluded that Fairbairn is not necessarily the best location for the ESA headquarters. Minister, why did your government choose the worst option for the relocation of the Emergency Services Agency?
MR CORBELL: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the question. The studies that Mr Seselja refers to relate to the problems associated with the buildings that were proposed to be utilised for the ESA headquarters at Fairbairn. As a result of those
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video