Page 455 - Week 02 - Thursday, 3 March 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
could have done his own economic analysis. The basic data would have been available to him and he would have had ample opportunity, over a period of many months, if he so chose, to analyse it. I think it is unacceptable, at the very last moment, at one minute before midnight, to say, "Lacking access to the basic data, I cannot estimate their effect on the conclusions". I think it is regrettable that Professor Neutze has left it until this moment to make these remarks. There will be those who will argue that the Access Economics report is flawed. I do not accept that and neither does Professor Neutze, in terms of the methodology.
For my part, there has been a long process. There have been real and justified community concerns about what has been proposed by the Government; but, in the context of the process that is set down by law, the Government, whether willingly or unwillingly, has done everything it can at this stage to satisfy the community. I know that there will be continuing discontent with the outcome, but as a member of the committee that has been closely involved with this, as a member of the committee that has strongly insisted during the entire process that the prerogatives of the community be properly taken into account, I have to say that at this stage I can see no reason why the findings of the economic analysis done by Access Economics should be set aside. I believe that the process should now be allowed to do what is prescribed by law and come to an end.
I have to say that when Michael Moore moves his motion of disallowance later this morning, for my part I will not be able to support it. I will leave it to others to pass their judgment on the process and on the report, but I think I should make my position on it quite clear. That is not to say that I do not have some sympathy for the continuing concerns of the community. I do. But there is a process prescribed by law that has certain timescales associated with it. That has long been known; nothing has been brought out of the hat on this matter.
There comes a time when the Government, on the basis of the information it has, has to make a decision. It simply cannot be allowed to go on month after month, year after year, with requests for further information, for amplification of what has been done, for further clarification. There is a thing called risk management, where managers make a decision based on the information they have available to them at the time. There has been a process, there has been no attempt to avoid that process or the ramifications of it, and I think the time has come when, in the interests of the community at large, the Government has to make its decision on this matter. Today is the day. That is unfortunate for some. It is tough, and not everybody will be satisfied, but I believe that that is the fact.
Mr Stevenson: Madam Speaker - - -
MADAM SPEAKER: Mr Kaine concluded the debate, Mr Stevenson. The question now is: That the motion be agreed to.
Mr Moore: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I believe that the motion was originally moved by Mr Kaine. Nobody else has had a chance to speak to it.
MADAM SPEAKER: I proposed the question, Mr Moore, and nobody stood but Mr Kaine.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .