Page 2901 - Week 11 - Thursday, 22 October 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
on the Animal Welfare Bill, and I could make many others on many other Bills, hold absolutely. It is all very well to talk consultation. It is an entirely different thing to actually do it. We find that it is talked about often. I think it unfortunate that the Liberal Party, in this case - in any of the cases - is not prepared to agree with this amendment. It is something that most people in the community would have to agree with. Most people in the business sector would have to agree with it. The fact that we can do it otherwise is not the answer.
I still leave with the Minister the question that has not been answered. Why not? Why should not the Assembly also have the right, as with any amendment or other Bill, to have the matter tabled in the Assembly and debated as a standard practice? The question I leave once again is: Why not?
Question put:
That the amendments (Mr Stevenson's) be agreed to.
The Assembly voted -
AYES, 1 NOES, 15
Mr Stevenson Mr Berry
Mrs Carnell
Mr Connolly
Mr De Domenico
Ms Ellis
Ms Follett
Mrs Grassby
Mr Humphries
Mr Kaine
Mr Lamont
Ms McRae
Mr Moore
Ms Szuty
Mr Westende
Mr Wood
Question so resolved in the negative.
Clauses agreed to.
Clauses 36 to 40, by leave, taken together, and agreed to.
Clause 41
MR STEVENSON (12.25), by leave: I move:
Page 27, subclause (2), line 24, after "time", insert "and whether or not the person has prior conviction or convictions of a substantially similar nature".
Page 27, subclause (3), line 28, omit the subclause.
This amendment would delete an unnecessary subclause. Simply put, if we inserted a brief sentence it would save putting in a separate clause. The clause says that, where multiple offences are committed at a similar time and are of
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .