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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 10 Hansard (Wednesday, 25 August 2004) . . Page.. 4263 ..

MR SPEAKER: Order, Mrs Cross!

Mr Stanhope: Just get over the fact that you have lost your amendment. It is not that you lost your asbestos act.

Mrs Cross: You mean my bill?

MR SPEAKER: Order, everybody! I call Mr Quinlan.

MR QUINLAN: I just want to appeal to the commonsense of this place—sometimes it is difficult to do so. Not only is it not costed as to what it will run out to, but there is no notion as to how you administer it. We have got 100,000-plus houses out there. What is the suggestion? Speaking of being shallow, it is a case of “We didn’t think of that”. We have had a lot of that today. But how do you administer this? What do you do? Do you say, “Right, we’ll go around and count your taps and hand them out,” or will you take everybody’s word for it and say—

Mr Stanhope: “You can have five each.”

MR QUINLAN: Do we go into the scrap metal business for kits? Where is the thinking behind this little warm glow gesture that has been made by Mrs Cross on behalf of the people of the ACT? How the hell do you administer something like this? You could give them out by putting them in buckets on the street corner—that would be a good idea—and saying, “Take ‘em”. I have to say, Mrs Cross, on the second last day of this Assembly that this is just so typical.

MS DUNDAS (12.25 am): Mr Speaker, I can see what Mrs Cross is trying to do with her amendment. As she indicated, although the government supports the implementation of this legislation, she is trying to get the government to commit to adopting some of the proposals that we are supporting. However, I think this type of amendment would be better addressed through the budget or through a motion debated on private members’ day rather than being enshrined in law. There are problems with amending the bill in this way and, in that sense, I think we need to consider rejecting the amendment.

However, the amendment has had the effect of putting on the record the view that we are keen to see the government progress to make this legislation work by supporting households in the ACT to be more efficient with their use of internal water. We have all made that point and there are many different ways in which this can be achieved.

An amendment like this could remain in legislation for years. Also, as Mr Quinlan has rightly pointed out, the amendment does not provide any information about how these measures will be enacted. Therefore, I do not believe that this is the best way to go about achieving the outcome that we are aiming for tonight.

MS TUCKER (12.27 am): I would like Mrs Cross to explain her amendment much more fully than she has. I think it is not really clear from the wording even what she is trying to achieve. She said, “The government shall supply free of charge the necessary”, so I guess I want her to explain what she means by “necessary”. Does she mean required by law, or is she referring to dispensation? I think she needs to explain that.

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