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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 07 Hansard (Thursday, 1 July 2004) . . Page.. 3218 ..

The Assembly voted—

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

MR WOOD (Minister for Disability, Housing and Community Services, Minister for Urban Services, Minister for Police and Emergency Services, Minister for Arts and Heritage, and Acting Minister for Health) (9.16): I move amendment No 1 circulated in my name [see schedule 9 at page 3247], together with a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the amendments.

Mr Speaker, in response to issues raised in consultation with members of the Assembly and the scrutiny of bills report No 47, the government proposes to table seven amendments to the bill. Two of these represent procedural changes to the bill, one is substantive and four are technical. The government believes these amendments are important additions to the regulatory regime outlined in the bill, strengthening the government’s engagement with stakeholders and prescribing the appropriate accountability mechanisms.

The first procedural amendment sees the establishment of an advisory council under clause 10A. It will comprise eight members who belong to the various interest groups—academic, scientific and agricultural—prescribed in the clause. Members represent a mixture of skill sets and expertise. The establishment of an advisory council ensures that the minister’s decision on whether to grant an exemption is made with input from key stakeholders.

MR SPEAKER: Mr Wood, wouldn’t it be better to deal with your amendment 1?

MR WOOD: All right. I will do them as they come up, Mr Speaker.

MR SPEAKER: Yes, it might be easier; otherwise members might not understand.

MR WOOD: I was going to do a repeat of that last one.

MS DUNDAS (9.18): Mr Speaker, amendment 1 requires the minister to consult with an advisory council before making a decision about whether to grant an exemption, and this is a good step in creating greater consideration of the issues before granting an exemption from a moratorium. However, I have some concerns about the membership of the council, and I foreshadow that I will be supporting Ms Tucker’s amendments in that regard. I would add that consultation with a small group of hand-picked professionals is

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