Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . PDF . . . . Search

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1993 Week 06 Hansard (Wednesday, 19 May 1993) . . Page.. 1631 ..

MR MOORE (4.34): Madam Speaker, what has come out clearly in the debate today, which I have listened to in my room or in the chamber, is that the Liberals like to box things into nice neat little units. They like to put planning in this unit and education in that unit. They like to take a very narrow, boxed view of things such as the issue that is before us today. The way they see it is that the issue before us is simply about education, and Mrs Carnell elaborated on that; but there is also a very important planning issue. They cannot seem to take the overview, showing a careful understanding of the implications and the ramifications of dealing with both of those issues at once. They fail to see education in its broad perspective as well as its narrow perspective. The concept of education is more than just what happens in a classroom between a teacher and 25 or 30 students at any given time. It is about an ongoing process in terms of the community.

The Liberals want to attack schools, as the Alliance Government attacked them - in that case 25 schools, in this case who knows how many schools; they are not picking a number. They are unable to look at the broad picture and to find a way to improve education in the best possible way. We see the same old stuff trotted out again and again - that we will provide more money by closing some schools. They will veil it in all sorts of different ways and they will attempt to wrap it up in different wrapping, but the reality is that that is what they are interested in. They cannot take an overview and they cannot see the interests of the community. They blew it last time as far as school closures go and they appear to be blowing it again.

MADAM SPEAKER: The time for the discussion has now expired.


Debate resumed from 1 April 1993, on motion by Mr Wood:

That this Bill be agreed to in principle.

MR KAINE (4.36): Madam Speaker, the Liberals will support this Bill. It is a pretty straightforward Bill. What it does, initially, is bring under the design and siting rules what one might call works projects that are currently not included because they are not defined as structures. We see merit in extending the design and siting rules as the Minister proposes, for two reasons. First of all, it requires the proponents at least to abide by some standards and rules as to what they propose to do. Secondly, as the Minister has already explained, he is going to introduce an implementation plan, which will do two things as far as the community is concerned. It will allow the community to know what is proposed and it will allow some community consultation to proceed on the basis of that implementation plan. Certainly, the community will know what is intended from the outset, and they will then be able to observe whether or not the work that is actually done complies with the implementation plan. I think this is beneficial. It is in the interests of the community, and we support it.

I notice that the Minister has circulated an amendment. My understanding is that this is to cover an oversight in the original drafting. It covers the possibility that the Minister might reject one of these implementation plans when it is put to him. If he did, the question is: What then? This amendment, I understand, prescribes the procedure when the Minister rejects the implementation plan, and obviously that is also in the community interest. We have no difficulty with these matters, and we will support the Bill and the amendment.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . PDF . . . . Search