Page 3407 - Week 11 - Tuesday, 20 September 2005

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

In the context of the situation imagined by section 59, there is in fact no loss; it is a case in which, for five years, the position that would have pertained had the tree not been deliberately damaged will continue. You cannot say there is a loss because somebody deliberately damaged a tree in order to seek an advantage or a profit and there was an intervention. The status quo effectively is retained for five years. You cannot talk about loss; it is an action precipitated by a desire to make a profit or to achieve an advantage.

What the conservator is essentially doing is saying no, we will maintain the status quo; the position that would have prevailed had the tree survived will persist for five years. There is no loss. It is essentially an acknowledgment that, in the circumstance, a person shouldn’t be able to make a profit, take the odds to it that it is worth the risk of a fine because there will be some other greater advantage. And do not pretend people do not make decisions on that basis. They do. This is an appropriate response to a very, very difficult situation.

Question put:

That clause 59 be agreed to.

The Assembly voted—

Ayes 8

Noes 7

Mr Berry

Ms MacDonald

Mrs Burke

Mr Seselja

Mr Corbell

Ms Porter

Mrs Dunne

Mr Smyth

Mr Gentleman

Mr Quinlan

Dr Foskey

Mr Stefaniak

Mr Hargreaves

Mr Stanhope

Mr Pratt

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause 59 agreed to.

Leave of absence

Motion (by Mr Corbell) agreed to:

That leave of absence be given to Ms Gallagher for this sitting week.

At 6.00 pm, in accordance with standing order 34, the debate was interrupted and the resumption of the debate made an order of the day for the next sitting. The motion for the adjournment of the Assembly was put.

Adjournment

Petrol prices

MR MULCAHY (Molonglo) (6.01): Yesterday I thought my hearing was going when I heard the latest rather harebrained idea from the ACTU that it is racing off to make yet another wage claim for Australia’s, described by them, 1.5 million low-income earners because the cost of petrol has gone up. I thought we had moved out of the 1970s

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