Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 8 Hansard (9 August) . . Page.. 2833..
Mr Stefaniak (continuing):
that people want some consultation, but I think it is extraordinary for anyone to have a conditional adjournment. I am quite happy just to adjourn both bills.
Ms Tucker: I would like to speak to that.
MR DEPUTY SPEAKER: Ms Tucker, you may talk to the point of order.
Ms Tucker: I sought advice from the Clerk and I was assured I could do that, so I just did it. What is the problem with that?
MR DEPUTY SPEAKER: I intend to put the motion.
Ms Tucker: Thank you.
MR DEPUTY SPEAKER: The motion will be put in two parts.
Ms Tucker: I am happy to speak to it. Would people like me to speak to it?
MR DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, you cannot speak to that motion.
MS TUCKER: I seek leave to speak to that motion.
MR DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would not mind a copy of the motion. Thank you.
MS TUCKER: I sought leave to speak to it. Would you like me to speak to it?
MR DEPUTY SPEAKER: Ms Tucker, you have leave. Will you speak to your motion?
Mr Stefaniak: Why don't you just adjourn it? I will try to talk to those people. Let's do it next time.
MS TUCKER: Yes. Last year and in 1999 several Supreme Court-
Mr Stefaniak: You can apply for another adjournment then if you don't like it.
MS TUCKER: Excuse me! Several Supreme Court judgments made serious criticisms of court practice and administration on restraining orders and protection orders. The concerns were such that in these cases the orders were overturned on the basis that they had been improperly made. In response to these criticisms the government has done what they are calling a technical review of the legislation, which has resulted in this bill.
Mr Moore: Oh, fuck consultation!
MS TUCKER: The bill reorganises the law-what did you say?
Mr Moore: I withdraw anything I've said.