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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 7 Hansard (20 June) . . Page.. 2244 ..

MR TEMPORARY DEPUTY SPEAKER: We are talking at the moment, minister, to Ms Tucker's amendment.

MR SMYTH: Yes, in regard to Ms Tucker's amendment, which the government will be opposing, just as it will be opposing Mr Corbell's proposed second amendment. I think the appropriate thing would be to establish a review that gave LAPAC parameters so that at some time in the future they might look at dual occupancies. I think until you do that it is inappropriate to progress in this way. I can see that Mr Corbell would like to keep all elements in one motion, but at this stage I think it is far more appropriate to establish a review and look at the dual occupancy question in the whole. With that in mind, we will be opposing both Ms Tucker's amendment and Mr Corbell's foreshadowed amendment.

Question put:

		 Ayes 6  		Noes 7

 Mr Berry  	Ms Tucker  	Mrs Burke  	Mr Rugendyke
 Mr Corbell    			Mr Cornwell  	Mr Smyth
 Mr Hargreaves    		Mr Hird
 Mr Kaine    			Mr Humphries  
 Mr Quinlan    			Mr Osborne 

Amendment negatived.

MR SMYTH (Minister for Urban Services, Minister for Business, Tourism and the Arts and Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (9.29): Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to move the amended amendment circulated in my name.

Leave granted.

MR SMYTH: I move:

The government believes you should have a policy on this before you send applications hither and tither across the country. If we can come to a consensus on what role dual occupancies should play in the future of the city, that would be good, but the government thinks a review should come first. Then we can discuss other issues.

Question put:

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