Page 2949 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 14 September 1994

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .

---

Mr Moore indicated that this is not a simple debate. I agree with that. We are talking about landmark legislation. If it is introduced in the ACT, this will be the first State or Territory to have a community referendum process available to its citizens. As regards the timeframe, Mrs Carnell approached me some weeks ago and asked me not to refer her Bill immediately to a committee. She wanted me to have a look at her Bill before I made a decision on that matter. I have done that, and that is the reason why I decided to proceed with referring these Bills to an Assembly committee today rather than in the earlier sittings in August. I also had a problem with my voice at the time, and that was a difficulty for me.

Mr De Domenico suggested that, as a result of the Assembly rejecting Mrs Carnell's amendments, we are now not going to look at the Bills in the committee process. That simply is not the case. In fact, clause 1 of the motion, which Mrs Carnell's amendment did not amend, states:

(1) a Select Committee on Community Initiated Referendums be appointed to inquire into and report on:

(i) the Community Referendum Bill 1994 and

(ii) the Electors Initiative and Referendum Bill 1994;

So, that is quite clear. I cannot imagine that there is any confusion in the minds of Assembly members about the process. I thank members for their contributions to this debate, and I urge them to support the motion.

Question put:

That the motion (Ms Szuty's) be agreed to.

The Assembly voted -

AYES, 9   NOES, 6

Mr Berry  Mrs Carnell

Ms Ellis  Mr Cornwell

Ms Follett  Mr De Domenico

Mrs Grassby Mr Kaine

Mr Lamont Mr Stefaniak

Ms McRae Mr Stevenson

Mr Moore

Ms Szuty

Mr Wood

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

---

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .