Page 1078 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 5 April 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Secondly, the bill removes a confusing requirement that prospective security workers must already be employed by a master security licence holder before obtaining a security licence. There are more than 3,300 workers in the security industry and more men and women are joining this industry each and every day. This amendment will make it easier for them to join the industry.
Madam Speaker, the amendments that we are debating today will provide concrete and practical benefits to businesses, to individuals, to charitable organisations and to one of the growth engines and key employers in our city, the University of Canberra, by reducing the administrative burden on them, saving them time, saving them effort and saving them money. These reforms represent an ongoing and methodical process of identifying specific requirements which are unnecessarily burdensome, either simplifying them or eliminating them altogether.
The government will continue to foster a regulatory environment that helps businesses to establish themselves in the territory. Removing red tape will be an ongoing process for the territory to retain our competitive advantage over other jurisdictions and to help our businesses and our community flourish in the global economy. I commend this bill in its entirety to the Assembly.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill agreed to in principle.
Detail stage
Clauses 1 to 3, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Schedule 1.
MR HANSON (Molonglo—Leader of the Opposition) (11.44): I spoke to the substance of this during the in-principle stage.
MADAM SPEAKER: You need to indicate that you are opposing the schedule.
MR HANSON: I will be opposing the schedule, Madam Speaker. I will get to it. Often in question time ministers are allowed more than 10 seconds to get to their point. If you were here during my speech at the in-principle stage, Madam Speaker, as I was about to say, I outlined why the opposition will not be supporting this schedule. So I will not be repetitive.
I would like to rebut some of the comments that the Chief Minister made. It is becoming his style that if somebody disagrees then they are to be vilified, they are to be attacked, they are to be called ignorant, they are to be called anti-education, anti-university—whatever attack the Chief Minister can make. That is not the case. We are a very pro-education, pro-university party. I have a master’s degree from the University of Canberra. I am very pro University of Canberra.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video