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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 10 Hansard (25 September) . . Page.. 3356 ..

MRS CARNELL (continuing):

(de) health services performance against minimum standards of care;

(df) intersectoral activities relevant to health;".

As I have already said, these amendments were the result of a good process in which Mr Moore and others brought forward a number of very sensible approaches. I think everyone has had a chance to look at these amendments, and I commend them to the Assembly.

Motion (by Mr Berry) negatived:

That the debate be adjourned.

Amendments agreed to.

Clauses, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 88

MS TUCKER (5.54): I move:

Page 48, line 18, paragraph (1)(a), omit "6 months", substitute "3 months".

Mr Berry: Would somebody like to speak on it, so that we know what it is all about? Nobody bothered on the other one.

MR SPEAKER: Ms Tucker is about to speak now, if you will give her a chance. Continue, Ms Tucker. Just ignore the interjections, as usual.

MS TUCKER: Our first amendment is to reduce from six months to three months the period during which seized items may be held as potential evidence if no legal proceedings have been commenced. It is reasonable to assume that many of the goods seized would be implements or tools which would be relied upon for a person's livelihood. Seizure of these goods without a requirement to institute legal proceedings for a period of six months would, without doubt, interfere with a person's ability to support themselves through the operation of their business.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 89 to 101, by leave, taken together, and agreed to.

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