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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 03 Hansard (Tuesday, 9 March 2004) . . Page.. 928 ..

building materials in contravention of those guidelines. The guidelines are disallowable, allowing those of us in the Assembly who want to, to scrutinise and influence the process.

In the revised version of the amendment I have changed the words “The Minister may” to “The Minister must”. This point was made in an amendment moved by Mrs Dunne. However, as her amendment did not get up, that end is achieved in my amendment.

MRS DUNNE (5.05): Mr Speaker, I seek leave to move amendments 3 and 4—but not amendment 5—circulated in my name, together.

Leave granted.

MRS DUNNE: I move my amendments Nos 3 and 4 [see schedule 5 at page 938]. I take the point made by members that reference to things like plumbing and building design may not be best placed in the Building Bill. While I disagree—and in saying that, I am not reflecting on the vote—I think the spirit of what is being proposed in amendments 3 and 4 leaves scope for there to be an application that is wider than the narrow application in relation to building materials only.

It may be that the minister will devise sustainability guidelines that may trespass beyond the issue of building materials. If he does, as things are currently constructed they could not be applied because Ms Tucker’s amendment states very strictly that “A builder must not use a building material in contravention of the sustainability guidelines”. I think my amendment that says “A builder must not contravene the sustainability guidelines” gives the minister more scope.

MR CORBELL (Minister for Health and Minister for Planning) (5.07): Mr Speaker, the government will not be supporting Mrs Dunne’s amendments for the same reasons I outlined in relation to her previous amendments, so I will not revisit that debate. The government will support Ms Tucker’s amendment as the proposal is a reasonable one. The government will support the approach Ms Tucker has taken with both of the amendments.

MR SPEAKER: The question is that Mrs Dunne’s amendments be agreed to.

Amendments negatived.

MR SPEAKER: The question now is that Ms Tucker’s amendment be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Proposed new clause 142A agreed to.

Remainder of bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Adjournment

Motion (by Mr Corbell) proposed:

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