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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 10 Hansard (26 November) . . Page.. 3111 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

I think that this is a sensible amendment. It is about the precautionary principle. I do not know what the haste is about here. We could at least wait until after December so that members can look carefully at what comes out of that meeting and have some sense of how the overall scheme will work. Of course, in this place, there is always a great rush to move to the market model because, we are always told by the Government, that is what makes people value things, the market model will solve our problems and deliver good outcomes to society and the environment, which is laughable when you look at how it has worked in other places.

Question put:

That the amendment (Ms Tucker's) be agreed to.

The Assembly voted -

AYES, 8	 	NOES, 9

Mr Berry	Ms Carnell
Mr Corbell	Mr Cornwell
Mr Hargreaves	Mr Hird
Mr Osborne	Mr Humphries
Mr Quinlan	Mr Kaine
Mr Stanhope	Mr Moore
Ms Tucker	Mr Rugendyke
Mr Wood		Mr Smyth
		Mr Stefaniak
Question so resolved in the negative.

MR SMYTH (Minister for Urban Services) (5.20): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move amendment No. 2 circulated in my name:

Page 2, line 28, definition of "bore", add "but does not include a subsoil drain;".

This amendment changes the definition of a bore in clause 4 to ensure that it is clear that the definition does not include a subsoil drain. It is cleaning up the situation regarding drains used to drain excess moisture from house foundations and retaining walls. Without this change, a bore construction permit would be required to construct such drains. Amendment No. 4 also adds the definition of a subsoil drain to clause 4.

Amendment agreed to.

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