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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 01 Hansard (Wednesday, 11 February 2004) . . Page.. 234 ..

sympathetic ear; hence the motions on the table today. We have a duty of care to do the right thing for these residents. Drug rehabilitation centres are important; they have never said otherwise. To throw that in as a red herring is misleading and, frankly, very disappointing for someone with so many talents. I ask the minister to reconsider his position, to withdraw his amendments and to support both Mr Smyth’s and my motions.

MR DEPUTY SPEAKER: Although this is a cognate debate, the motions are not. We are dealing with notice No 3 in the name of Mrs Cross. That is all we are voting on at the moment.

Ordered that the question be divided.

Preamble agreed to.

Paragraph (1) agreed to.

Question put:

That paragraph (2) be agreed to.

The Assembly voted—

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Paragraph (2) agreed to.

Paragraph (3) negatived.

Planning and Environment—Standing Committee

Reference

MR SMYTH (Leader of the Opposition) (5.10): I seek leave to amend motion No 4 in my name on the notice paper in the terms circulated in the chamber. The amendment is simply a clarification of what would go to the committee, including the use of the call-in power and the requirement to report by 31 May 2004.

Leave granted.

MR SMYTH: I move:

That this Assembly:

(1) affirms its support for appropriately sited residential and non-residential drug rehabilitation facilities;

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