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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 9 Hansard (22 August) . . Page.. 3120 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

continue with our existing egg labelling laws, applying them in the same way as they have been applied since 1997. My bill sets out the process to achieve that.

I commend the bill to the Assembly.

Debate (on motion by Mr Moore ) adjourned to the next sitting.

Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Amendment Bill 2001 (No 2)

MR RUGENDYKE: I ask for leave to present the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Amendment Bill 2001 (No 2) as it is not in accordance with standing order 136.

Leave not granted.

Suspension of standing and temporary orders

MR RUGENDYKE (10.35): I move:

That so much of standing and temporary orders be suspended as would prevent Mr Rugendyke from presenting his bill.

MR SPEAKER: You can debate it, if you wish, Mr Rugendyke. We have 15 minutes to debate this motion to suspend standing orders. You can set out your reasons why you want it done. You have five minutes.

MR RUGENDYKE: I think it is important to have this debate on this bill that I have attempted to present, even though it is in the same calendar year as my previous bill. It is my understanding and belief that the burnout legislation I introduced to this Assembly some time ago was very successful. It was taken out of operation, in my view inadvertently, with the introduction of road rage legislation. For that reason, I believe it is important to have this debate, as it was the will of the Assembly on two occasions previously that burnout legislation be passed.

MR HARGREAVES (10.37): Mr Speaker, I am opposing the suspension of standing orders. I think it is inappropriate to try to introduce the same legislation in the same calendar year at this late stage. I do not see any necessity for it whatever. If Mr Rugendyke is successful in being re-elected, he can bring the bill back next year and it can be voted on on its merits then.

Mr Rugendyke says that the reason why he wants to reintroduce this bill through the agency of a suspension of standing orders is that the changes to the burnout legislation were inadvertent. I remind members that when I spoke against the road rage bill I indicated very clearly that there was no suggestion that there was anything inadvertent about what happened to the burnout legislation. Both of these pieces of legislation have one thing in common: they remove from the courts the power to order the confiscation of property.

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