Page 1741 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 7 June 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
This has been a very collaborative process, and I think many people were surprised when concerns were raised about the definition of “capital item”. I took a decision to defer these amendments because I think this has been a positive and collaborative process. The fact that there were late concerns was a surprise, but the complexity of this issue is such that I was quite comfortable to defer consideration of this to a later date. Contrary to Mr Doszpot’s somewhat grubby remarks, there was no desire to jam this through in the way he suggested. Rather, it is a recognition of the fact that this is a complex process. That is why I was quite comfortable to defer the amendments.
I flag for the Assembly that there will be further amendments to this act, but not during the term of this Assembly, obviously, because we are now out of time. I have asked the Justice and Community Safety Directorate to continue to work with our reference group on matters that are complicated, and issues such as the definition of “capital item” will go to that time. I am perfectly comfortable with that because it is clear to me that, even within certain groups, there are different understandings of the legislation.
It highlights the fact that we clearly need to amend this part of the legislation because the sheer fact that there is a different understanding of what it has meant until this point in time has meant that understanding what the amendments proposed was a contested space. This is obviously a complex area of policy work and one that I look forward to further discussion about.
Clause 30 negatived.
MADAM ASSISTANT SPEAKER: Before I continue to the next clause, I ask you to withdraw your word “grubby”, Mr Rattenbury, in keeping with previous rulings by the Speaker, including you on several occasions.
Mr Rattenbury: Madam Assistant Speaker, I seek further advice. My understanding of the history of this matter is that that word has been considered unparliamentary when applied to an individual as opposed to remarks.
MADAM ASSISTANT SPEAKER: I think the implication was quite clear, Mr Rattenbury.
Mr Rattenbury: In which case, if that is your view, Madam Assistant Speaker, I am happy to withdraw.
MADAM ASSISTANT SPEAKER: Thank you.
Clause 31 negatived.
Clauses 32 to 60, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 61 negatived.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video