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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 13 Hansard (9 December) . . Page.. 4286 ..

Question put:

That the amendment (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.

Amendment negatived.

MR STANHOPE (Leader of the Opposition) (3.38 am): Mr Speaker, I seek leave to move amendment No. 7 circulated in my name.

Leave granted.


Page 17, line 23, proposed new subsection 36 (3), definition of "intoxicated", omit "substance specified in Column 1 of Schedule 1 to the Drugs of Dependence Regulations", substitute "drug of dependence, or a prohibited substance, within the meaning of the Drugs of Dependence Act 1989".

Mr Speaker, bear with me while I find my place.

Mr Humphries: Yes, I have all the time in the world.

MR STANHOPE: We have at this stage, haven't we? Proposed new subsection 36(3) deals with the definition of "intoxicated". Actually, this is a minor technical matter. Not wishing to teach how to suck eggs or anything, but the Government's Bill refers only to intoxication by drugs of dependence. The amendment adds intoxication by prohibited substances, for instance, heroin. Heroin is not a drug of dependence. It is defined as a prohibited substance. This is just a bit of tidying up.

MR HUMPHRIES (Treasurer, Attorney-General and Minister for Justice and Community Safety) (3.39 am): That sounds reasonable to me, Mr Speaker.

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