Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . PDF . . . . Video

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2010 Week 12 Hansard (Tuesday, 26 October 2010) . . Page.. 5009 ..


addressed through having a set of criteria that is as broad as possible around certain interests being represented. The government does not agree with the amendment and will not be supporting it.

MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (12.02): The Greens will not be supporting Mr Seselja’s amendment, although, in some senses, the amendment I am about to propose is not entirely different. I guess the difference lies in the fact that we are seeking to bring expertise rather than interests. It may be a subtle thing, but Mr Seselja’s amendment is very much framed in terms of a person representing the housing sector, for example, or a person representing the transport sector. We have framed it in terms of a person representing transport planning or an energy specialist.

I guess it is a subtle difference, but it is trying to pick up that we want this knowledge and expertise on the council. We do not necessarily want people coming along to bat for their corner. That is, I guess, the subtle difference here. The Greens do not disagree with the direction in which Mr Seselja is going, but we would like to suggest a slightly different framing to give the minister greater flexibility when it comes to the appointments that he or she will need to make to the council.

Question put:

That Mr Seselja’s amendment No 2 be agreed to.

The Assembly voted—

Ayes 5

Noes 9

Mr Doszpot

Mr Seselja

Mr Barr

Ms Hunter

Mrs Dunne

Mr Smyth

Ms Bresnan

Ms Le Couteur

Mr Hanson

Mr Corbell

Ms Porter

Ms Gallagher

Mr Rattenbury

Mr Hargreaves

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

MADAM ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ms Le Couteur): The question now is that clause 17, as amended, be agreed to.

MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (12.07): I move amendment No 19 circulated in my name [see schedule 2 at page 5091].

This amendment continues to address the same provision we have just been talking about. It omits clause 17(2)(b)(vi) and substitutes some further areas of expertise as outlined in the amendment. I do note that we have already passed Mr Corbell’s amendment, 17(2)(b)(iia), and I think we may end up with some duplication here, so I seek some guidance as to whether I also explicitly need to indicate that we are overriding Mr Corbell’s previous amendment here, because it will result in some duplication if we do not address the point.


Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . PDF . . . . Video