Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2005 Week 11 Hansard (20 September) . . Page.. 3407..
MR STANHOPE (continuing):
In the context of the situation imagined by section 59, there is in fact no loss; it is a case in which, for five years, the position that would have pertained had the tree not been deliberately damaged will continue. You cannot say there is a loss because somebody deliberately damaged a tree in order to seek an advantage or a profit and there was an intervention. The status quo effectively is retained for five years. You cannot talk about loss; it is an action precipitated by a desire to make a profit or to achieve an advantage.
What the conservator is essentially doing is saying no, we will maintain the status quo; the position that would have prevailed had the tree survived will persist for five years. There is no loss. It is essentially an acknowledgment that, in the circumstance, a person shouldn't be able to make a profit, take the odds to it that it is worth the risk of a fine because there will be some other greater advantage. And do not pretend people do not make decisions on that basis. They do. This is an appropriate response to a very, very difficult situation.
That clause 59 be agreed to.
The Assembly voted-
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Clause 59 agreed to.
Leave of absence
Motion (by Mr Corbell ) agreed to:
That leave of absence be given to Ms Gallagher for this sitting week.
MR MULCAHY (Molonglo) (6.01): Yesterday I thought my hearing was going when I heard the latest rather harebrained idea from the ACTU that it is racing off to make yet another wage claim for Australia's, described by them, 1.5 million low-income earners because the cost of petrol has gone up. I thought we had moved out of the 1970s