Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 6 Hansard (19 June) . . Page.. 2150 ..
MR SPEAKER: The question now is that the debate be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
MR CORBELL(Minister for Health and Minister for Planning) (4.07): I move the following amendment:
Omit "the next sitting", substitute "a later hour".
Colleagues, this is not rocket science; it is very straightforward. This is not about some grab for power. It is simply a proposal to allow the staff of the Land Development Agency to issue leases to people who buy land. If you do not issue a lease to someone who buys a block of land, they do not have the block of land. That is all it is.
I propose that we delay the debate until a later hour this day so that we can discuss the matter further and resolve any confusion that may exist. It is not a difficult proposition, and to suggest otherwise is simply misleading. The reason I wish to have this delayed to only a later hour this day is that it is important that this legislation is passed as soon as possible to allow the new authority to commence its operations on 1 July and to have the necessary administrative arrangements in place.
Whilst I understand that members are concerned about this amendment, I believe that it does not require deferral until next week and that it can be simply addressed in discussions outside the chamber during the rest of today's sitting.
MS DUNDAS(4.09): For the record, while I am supporting this adjournment, it is not because we are aware of problems with the substantive issue but because it appears that some members in this place were not given notice of this amendment whilst other members were. That has created confusion, and that confusion needs to be sorted out. Those members who received an earlier version of these amendments need time to form their position on this.
We are talking about two working days-four days in total-that this will be delayed by. It will not be a major impost on the authority-which has actually not yet taken hold, because it is not 1 July. That is the reason we are doing this. There was an error in the amendments that were circulated to some members and, now that they have the revised amendments, they need time to work it out.
Debate adjourned to the next sitting.
Bushfire Inquiry (Protection of Statements) Amendment Bill 2003
Debate resumed from 17 June 2003, on motion by Mr Stanhope:
That this bill be agreed to in principle.