Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 1 Hansard (21 February) . . Page.. 118..
MR DE DOMENICO (continuing):
They are looking at the overall transport strategy for the ACT, including light rail and very fast trains between Canberra and Sydney - that has to occur as well - and public transport for the future development of other areas of the ACT as well. Once that group makes any recommendations whatsoever I will make sure that they are before you as well.
MS TUCKER: I have a supplementary question, Mr Speaker. If that is the case, you do not have an obvious strategy for when they will make reports or recommendations, but you are already making quite significant decisions in relation to transport issues, including Gungahlin, such as putting aside money in capital works for the widening of Mouat Street. Why do you feel that you can make these sorts of significant decisions before you have had any input from that group? What is the function of that group if you continue to make these sorts of significant decisions without the benefit of their input?
MR DE DOMENICO: I suggest to you, Ms Tucker, that this group will also take on board any recommendations and any input made by the people in the Mouat Street area of Lyneham that you refer to, as they will take into account any other inputs made by any of the other groups. There is one in Civic. Others are going to be set up in Manuka and other places in the ACT. They are part of the overall metropolitan strategy and, as you are aware, will be making some recommendations by September this year. All those views will be taken into account.
Mrs Carnell: I ask that all further questions be placed on the notice paper.
MR SPEAKER: Members, I wish to address the Assembly on a matter that I undertook to consider during consideration of the detail stage of the Public Sector Management (Amendment) Bill on 12 December 1995. At the conclusion of the consideration of clause 4 of the Bill Ms Follett sought to address the Assembly concerning comments made earlier by the Chief Minister. She initially sought to do so pursuant to standing order 46, and later pursuant to standing order 47. Points of order were raised concerning the applicability of standing orders 46 and 47 to the course proposed.
Standing orders give members a number of opportunities to speak in the Assembly. Two provisions are that members can explain matters of a personal nature, having first obtained leave from the Chair, and can speak again in a debate where a material part of the member's speech has been misquoted or misunderstood.
Personal explanations are made pursuant to standing order 46. Provided no other member is addressing the Assembly, the member wishing to make a personal explanation obtains the leave of the Chair, not the Assembly, to explain a matter of a personal nature. The member must not debate the matter and there need not be a question before the Assembly. At pages 470 and 471, House of Representatives Practice sets out the practice relating to personal explanations in that house.