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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 5 Hansard (8 May) . . Page.. 1298 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

about it. We need to weigh it up, in our best capacities and in our consciences, and decide what is the right thing to do. With this amendment, we have not had time to do that.

I have had a quick briefing here-talking to people. I need to talk to more people. I am not prepared to throw this out by supporting this amendment, when my understanding is that women in ordinary de facto relationships have been disadvantaged the most. By doing this, we would be preventing them from finally being treated in an equal way.

I do not feel I have had time to consider this. For that reason, I am not prepared to support it.

Question put:

That Ms Dundas' amendment be agreed to.

The Assembly voted-

Ayes, 1

Noes, 16

Ms Dundas

Mr Berry

Ms MacDonald

Mr Corbell

Mr Pratt

Mr Cornwell

Mr Quinlan

Mrs Cross

Mr Smyth

Mrs Dunne

Mr Stanhope

Ms Gallagher

Mr Stefaniak

Mr Hargreaves

Ms Tucker

Mr Humphries

Mr Wood

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

MS TUCKER: I seek leave to move the amendment circulated in my name.

Leave granted.

MR SPEAKER: Ms Tucker, I have taken advice in relation to the amendment you have put before the Assembly. I draw your attention to standing order 140 and I will read it. Order, members! Please resume your seats for a minute. It reads:

Every amendment must be relevant to the question which it is proposed to amend.

It is clear from the daily program that the issue which has been brought before the house by Mr Hargreaves-and I quote-is about "discrimination in de facto relationship property matters". According to my advice, the amendment you have brought before the house widens the issue significantly. It therefore breaches standing order 140. It says:

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