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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 2 Hansard (29 February) . . Page.. 347 ..

MR RUGENDYKE (12.11): You just need to look at the name of this Bill. The first word is "Independent". We want an independent competition and regulatory commission. If you are going to stack it with people with vested interests, how independent would it be?

Amendment (Mr Quinlan's ) to Ms Tucker's amendment agreed to.

Amendment (Ms Tucker's ), as amended, agreed to.

Question put:

A vote having been called for and the bells being rung -

MR SPEAKER: Mr Rugendyke, you are calling for a division on the question that the Bill as a whole, as amended, be agreed to. Are we clear on that?

Mr Rugendyke: I believed it was on the amendment.

MR SPEAKER: I had declared the result on Ms Tucker's amendment, Mr Rugendyke.

Mr Rugendyke: Mr Speaker, I understood that I was calling for a division on the amendment. If that was not the case, I withdraw the call.

Mr Humphries: I believe there is a power, Mr Speaker, to recommit a motion where there is confusion about the result. I think in the circumstances it would be appropriate to recommit the question.

MR SPEAKER: Very well. Is it the wish of the Assembly to recommit?

Mr Berry: No.

MR SPEAKER: Mr Berry, if I recommit the question that Ms Tucker's amendment, as amended, be agreed to, we will simply go into this division and resolve the matter. I am asking whether leave is granted.

Mr Berry: This division was called in respect of the Bill though, was it not?

MR SPEAKER: It was, but Mr Rugendyke is arguing that he wanted to call the division in respect of Ms Tucker's amendment, as amended, being agreed to. I am asking the Assembly whether they are prepared to recommit that motion. There being no objection, I will put the question on Ms Tucker's amendment, as amended, again.

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