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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 3 Hansard (25 March) . . Page.. 891 ..

MR WOOD: Yes, totally correct. Mr Humphries, by raising the Eastman example, perhaps quite unconsciously and not deliberately, has taken the path away. The question is: What about the ordinary bloke who will not create any trouble in the court having his chance if he wants it? That is the question, not someone whom the court needs to keep out for a particular reason for a short time or for a longer period.

Question put:

That the amendments (Mr Stanhope's ) be agreed to.

The Assembly voted - 

AYES, 8   	NOES, 9

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

Amendments negatived.

Bill, as a whole, agreed to.

Bill agreed to.

COURTS AND TRIBUNALS (AUDIO VISUAL AND AUDIO LINKING) BILL 1999

Debate resumed from 18 February 1999, on motion by Mr Humphries:

That this Bill be agreed to in principle.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill agreed to in principle.

Detail Stage

Bill, by leave, taken as a whole

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