Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 7 Hansard (27 June) . . Page.. 1969 ..
MR HUMPHRIES: My advice is that this proposition will not assist the operation of the legislation. I have also not been given a convincing reason why this clause should be agreed to. For that reason, Mr Speaker, I indicate that the government will not support Mr Quinlan's proposition, but we will not die in a ditch about the matter either.
Question put:
That clause 5 be agreed to.
The bells being rung-
Mr Humphries: Mr Speaker, I wish to indicate that the noes do have it and a division is not necessary.
MR SPEAKER: Very well. Is leave granted to call off the division? There being no objection, leave is granted.
Clause negatived.
Clause 6.
MR SPEAKER: Mr Quinlan, are you opposing clause 6 as well?
MR QUINLAN (11.04): Yes. Clauses 5 and 6 virtually live together, Mr Speaker.
Clause negatived.
Remainder of bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
Debate resumed from 25 May 2000, on motion by Mr Humphries:
That this bill be agreed to in principle.
MR STANHOPE (Leader of the Opposition) (11.05): Mr Speaker, the Labor Party is generally accepting of this particular amendment. We have no difficulty with the proposal to increase the fee or the level of compensation that an offender should pay from $30 to $50. We do have a concern consistent with the scrutiny of bills committee's report on this bill in relation to the potential for retrospective application of this provision.
It seems to the Labor Party that the concerns that the scrutiny of bills committee raised in relation to this issue could quite easily have been avoided and that the government's intention could quite well have been achieved by simply making the allowance for the increased payment to apply on and after 1 July, namely, the date on which the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .