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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 06 Hansard (Wednesday, 23 June 2004) . . Page.. 2526 ..

I later put about the resumption of the debate in the ordinary way of dealing with things in here.

Mrs Dunne: I do apologise, Mr Speaker. We are getting a bit testy here today.

MR SPEAKER: Some of us are. The question now is:

That the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

Amendment (by Mrs Dunne) proposed:

Omit “the next sitting”, substitute “a later hour this day”.

MR CORBELL (Minister for Health and Minister for Planning) (4.40): Mr Speaker, I am uncomfortable with simply adjourning this debate to a later hour this day. The reason for that, Mr Speaker is that we have had a number of amendments developed only over the course of this afternoon. The most recent one, which I understand a number of members are comfortable with, has been circulated by Ms Dundas. That amendment, without wanting to debate the substance of it, is a matter which I think would benefit from some further advice being provided in relation to the implications of that amendment, and rather than move to debate this matter later today I think it would be preferable if this matter were dealt with on the next private members’ business day, which is next Wednesday, to allow some more considered reflection of the implications of this amendment.

Again, I think it would be poor law-making, similar to what we have seen in relation to the substantive bill, if we were to rush this process and were not fully cognisant of the impacts of the particular amendment. Just to elaborate on that if I may briefly, Mr Speaker, without wanting to pre-empt too much debate: the amendment as proposed by Ms Dundas, the latest amendment which was produced at half past 3 this afternoon, about an hour and a half ago, indicates that she wants to restrict pharmacies simply to not occurring inside or partly inside the premises of a supermarket.

Mrs Dunne: On a point of order Mr Speaker: I think that Mr Corbell is now debating the substantive issue. I was prepared to let him go for a while, but I think he is debating the substantive issue. The motion before us is that my amendment be agreed to, and that is to insert “to a later hour this day”.

MR SPEAKER: It is a bit hard for Mr Corbell, though, to deal with the substance of the matter without explaining in some detail why he wants to delay the matter for a longer period than a later hour this day, don’t you think? I am prepared to allow it. As long as we do not carry on for ages a debate on the matter of the amendment that is likely to be considered later, it strikes me that it is open to Mr Corbell to at least reflect on it to some degree in order to make the point.

MR CORBELL: Thank you, Mr Speaker; I appreciate your ruling. The point I simply want to make to members is: it is possible that this definition as proposed by Ms Dundas could catch larger pharmacy operations already in place in the ACT and make their operations illegal. I think it would be prudent on the part of members to allow some time for some further analysis of this amendment prior to making a decision and that it would

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