Page 3278 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 22 August 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
for it. But we are now seeking to improve it slightly by ensuring that there is a reasonable amount of time before it commences. That will enable whoever is in government after October to do the right thing and make sure that there is a smooth implementation of this legislation.
Whilst Ms Porter is very sensitive to these criticisms, I should at least commend her on having a much more positive attitude to seniors than her colleague Ms Joy Burch, who, as we have seen in recent days, does not think that seniors in our community are up to basic tasks like contributing as volunteers and looking after people in our community.
Mr Corbell: A point of order, Mr Speaker.
MR SPEAKER: One moment, Mr Seselja. Stop the clocks, thank you.
Mr Corbell: It is on relevance. This is not about Ms Burch or what Mr Seselja alleges Ms Burch has said or done. It is about the amendment before us in relation to Ms Porter’s bill. I would ask you to ask Mr Seselja to remain relevant.
MR SESELJA: On the point of order, they are very sensitive to this. I was simply commending Ms Porter for her work. I was just drawing a comparison in relation to the work that she has done on this bill. This bill is about—
MR SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr Seselja. I think at this point there is no point of order, but I would ask you to move on, Mr Seselja.
MR SESELJA: I will, but I do note the sensitivity of Mr Corbell in jumping to Ms Burch’s defence.
In conclusion, I commend this amendment to the Assembly. I think it will prevent any unintended consequences. We have raised some potential concerns. There are still some concerns out there. Even though industry have come out and said, “Yes, we can accept this,” and residents have said, “Yes, we can accept this bill,” and the second bill has been a much quicker process, there are still concerns out there. I think a 1 March start date would be very sensible and would potentially prevent some unintended consequences from occurring as this bill is passed into law.
MS BRESNAN (Brindabella) (9.48): While I appreciate the intent of the amendment from Mr Seselja, I do not think it is necessary and the Greens will not be supporting it. I do not think this has been a rushed process in terms of the previous bill. Through this whole process, the issues, the concerns, have been addressed throughout. That is why we have come up with the current bill. As we know, the bill would start in six months. I think that actually allows plenty of time. I think it is best to allow the main stakeholder groups involved in this process to determine within that six-month period when the bill should be implemented. We might find that it can be implemented before that six-month period. I do not think we would want to prevent that from occurring if that was the case. I know that there are a number of people waiting for this bill to come in and I think we should allow the stakeholders to control that process. For those reasons, we will not be supporting this amendment.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video