ACT Legislative Assembly Hansard


Advanced search

Next page . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . Search

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2011 Week 9 Hansard (24 August) . . Page.. 3822..


arrangements are and what the future arrangements will be through new licence agreements.

So it is frustrating that we have this sort of motion presented to the Assembly when the government have been, I think, quite forthcoming with what we are doing, why we have done it and have held ourselves accountable to that. We still have this motion proposing to be passed today calling upon the government to do certain things. The fact is that the government has done all of these things. I think that Ms Le Couteur and the Greens should recognise that and support the government's amendments.

Question put:

That Mr Corbell's amendments be agreed to.

The Assembly voted—

Ayes 6: Mr Barr Dr Bourke Ms Burch Mr Corbell Mr Hargreaves Ms Porter

Noes 9: Ms Bresnan Mr Coe Mr Doszpot Mr Hanson Ms Hunter Ms Le Couteur Mr Rattenbury Mr Seselja Mr Smyth

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendments negatived.

MR COE (Ginninderra) (6.10): I would like to extend my thanks to those opposite for their contribution to this debate, in particular Ms Le Couteur for her support for the motion. I think it has been interesting that Mr Corbell would pretty much equate his amendment 2(a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) to what I was actually requesting in my motion. I was requesting a list of dates an inspection took place, a list of advice given to tenants, risk management plans and the plans they have for future management. Instead, he has given me a few dates and said they are going to be compliant with the Emergencies Act 2004. That is useful information and I am appreciative of that, but he is kidding himself and he is being neglectful to the people of the ACT if he actually thinks that is comparable to what I was calling for.

It is also interesting that his amendment should actually call for omitting 1(e) which is actually that the government was advised that a thorough risk management plan of the entire Parkwood site should be conducted. Are they denying that question on notice? Are they denying the advice Mr Stanhope gave me that the Emergency Service Authority advised that a thorough risk management plan should be conducted? I find it pretty interesting that Mr Corbell would seek to omit that from a motion which is going to be successful today.

Again, I thank the crossbench for their support and I look forward to the Labor government complying with this motion and providing information so that we can get a full picture as to the lead-up to the fire which occurred on Saturday and as to how they are going to better risk-manage the site going into the future.


Next page . . Previous page. . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . Search


If you have special accessibility requirements in accessing information on this website,
please contact the Assembly on (02) 6205 0439 or send an email toOLA@parliament.act.gov.au
Accessibility | Copyright and Disclaimer Notice | Privacy Policy
© Legislative Assembly for the ACT