Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 7 Hansard (20 June) . . Page.. 2244..
MR TEMPORARY DEPUTY SPEAKER: We are talking at the moment, minister, to Ms Tucker's amendment.
MR SMYTH: Yes, in regard to Ms Tucker's amendment, which the government will be opposing, just as it will be opposing Mr Corbell's proposed second amendment. I think the appropriate thing would be to establish a review that gave LAPAC parameters so that at some time in the future they might look at dual occupancies. I think until you do that it is inappropriate to progress in this way. I can see that Mr Corbell would like to keep all elements in one motion, but at this stage I think it is far more appropriate to establish a review and look at the dual occupancy question in the whole. With that in mind, we will be opposing both Ms Tucker's amendment and Mr Corbell's foreshadowed amendment.
That Ms Tucker's amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 6 Noes 7 Mr Berry Ms Tucker Mrs Burke Mr Rugendyke Mr Corbell Mr Cornwell Mr Smyth Mr Hargreaves Mr Hird Mr Kaine Mr Humphries Mr Quinlan Mr OsborneQuestion so resolved in the negative.
MR SMYTH (Minister for Urban Services, Minister for Business, Tourism and the Arts and Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (9.29): Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to move the amended amendment circulated in my name.
MR SMYTH: I move:
Omit paragraph (2), substitute:
"(2) support a review of dual occupancy development in the Territory, and that interested Assembly members be invited to participate in a field assessment.".
The government believes you should have a policy on this before you send applications hither and tither across the country. If we can come to a consensus on what role dual occupancies should play in the future of the city, that would be good, but the government thinks a review should come first. Then we can discuss other issues.
That Mr Smyth's amendment be agreed to.