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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 5 Hansard (3 May) . . Page.. 1419 ..

Children and Young People Amendment Bill 2001 (No 2)

Debate resumed from 1 May 2001, on motion by Mr Moore:

That this bill be agreed to in principle.

MR WOOD (11.31): Mr Speaker, the opposition supports this bill. I am informed, and I agree, that it is a fairly technical matter to accommodate a couple of features. When the new legislation was passed a year ago it did not pick up a couple of the issues from the legislation that it superseded. I understand that these are fairly technical and sensible, but they are also urgent and they should be passed, as they will be today.

MS TUCKER (11.32): Yes, the Greens will also be supporting this bill. I understand the need for urgency. I would like to thank the minister and the department for the briefings. As we understand as well, it is really ensuring that the transition from the old to the new act is fair and seamless.

MR MOORE (Minister for Health, Housing and Community Services) (11.33), in reply: I appreciate the support from members and their willingness to deal with this as an urgent matter. We are always reluctant to introduce legislation on a Tuesday and seek to have it debated on the Thursday, as is the case in this situation. I appreciate the positive response I have had from all members from the time I first presented to them that this was necessary. That applies to members who have not spoken as well. I appreciate that support.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill agreed to in principle.

Leave granted to dispense with the detail stage.

Bill agreed to.

Appropriation Bill 2000-2001 (No 2)

Debate resumed from 8 March 2001, on motion by Mr Humphries:

That this bill be agreed to in principle.

MR QUINLAN (11.34): Let me say at the outset that the opposition will be supporting the passage of Appropriation Bill (No 2), but we still reserve the right to keep our powder dry in relation to the budget itself. The seemed shift from the traditional position is based on events relating to the passage of the budget last year when a couple of crossbenchers, Mr Rugendyke and Mr Osborne, actually voted against the budget because it contained a measure they did not like. We would have expected those crossbenchers who actually voted the government into office to have been the primary members to support the budget or give the government its budget for the year, which would have left the opposition in the traditional position of saying that we do not support all of the budget.

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