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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 6 Hansard (15 June) . . Page.. 1899 ..

MR STANHOPE: (Leader of the Opposition) (5.35): Mr Speaker, I move my amendment to clause 13 [see schedule 2, part 3, at page 1979]. I think members will be aware that just a short while ago an amendment I moved to clause 14 was agreed to by the Assembly. That amendment provided for an additional class of persons to fall within the definition of a person required to attend the court. Clause 13 is worded in the same terms but it has a slightly different effect or purpose.

For the sake of consistency, it would be only appropriate and reasonable that the amendment that was carried by members in relation to clause 14 apply also to clause 13-that is, that the class of persons that fall within the definition of a person required to attend the court includes a person accompanying a person mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (c).

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.

MR SPEAKER: The question now is that the bill, as amended, be agreed to.

Debate (on motion by Mr Moore ) adjourned to the next sitting.

Electoral Amendment Bill 2001

Detail Stage

Debate resumed from 13 June 2001.

MR SPEAKER: I advise members that this bill has been debated concurrently with the Electoral Amendment Bill 2001 (No 2) and the Electoral (Entrenched Provisions) Amendment Bill 2001, and we may continue so to do.

Clauses 1 to 3, by leave, taken together and agreed to.

Clause 4.

MR STEFANIAK (Minister for Education and Attorney-General) (5.38): I move amendment No 1 circulated in my name [see schedule 4, part 1, at page 1981].

Mr Moore: It is a consequential amendment.

MR STEFANIAK: Yes, it is a consequential amendment.

MR MOORE (Minister for Health, Housing and Community Services) (5.39): Although there will be many of these amendments that I will be opposing rather vigorously, they are largely consequential amendments and I have no comment on them. They are quite acceptable as far as I am concerned.


(5.39): I am happy to comment at this point, if Mr Stefaniak wants some time. My understanding of these consequential amendments is that they relate to the relaxing of funding disclosure requirements. I can certainly speak to that; that is

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