Page 3432 - Week 09 - Thursday, 20 August 2009

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

The government believes that, to be consistent, the words “an appreciable” as proposed by Mr Coe should be removed from his proposed amendment. I intend to move that the words “an appreciable” be removed from subclause 137(3) as proposed by Mr Coe. If Mr Coe is agreeable to that, I think that can be achieved quite easily.

MR SPEAKER: Mr Stanhope, I am afraid that, under standing order 182, amendments must be in writing and be circulated; so whilst I appreciate your proposed amendments are very minor—

Mrs Dunne: In that case, Mr Speaker, could we perhaps adjourn the debate to a later hour this day. Mr Hargreaves, Ms Bresnan and I can go on with the next item on the agenda and then come back to it. That would allow Mr Stanhope to circulate an amendment in writing. We can come back to it in 10 minutes or a quarter of an hour.

MR SPEAKER: Thank you for the suggestion, Mrs Dunne. What I actually propose to do is to move on to amendment No 4. We can come back to amendment No 3.

MR STANHOPE: Actually we can get through; I can write it out now. It will take me one minute.

Mrs Dunne: So what are we going to do?

MR SPEAKER: We are just going to take a moment to let Mr Stanhope write his amendment down.

MR STANHOPE: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank members for their indulgence. I formally move the amendment circulated in my name, which is that the words “an appreciable” be removed from Mr Coe’s proposed amendment No 3 [see schedule 2 at page 3496].

MR COE (Ginninderra) (10.38): Without actually sighting the amendment, I will take it in good faith that that is what the amendment does actually say. We will be supporting the amendment to the amendment.

MR SPEAKER: Members, we might just take a moment for it to be circulated.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Amendment No 4.

MS BRESNAN (Brindabella) (10.39): The Greens will not be supporting amendment No 4—likewise, 6 and 7. There are two issues here for us. Firstly, there is an issue with tying an industry code of practice into legislation as a defence, given the code could change despite the Assembly’s intent.

We can more easily accept the use of a code of practice as a way to set a standard and that, indeed, is what good industry codes of practice do, but the reverse does not

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