NOES, 8 . . Page.. 255 ..
MRS CARNELL: It is a different sort of demolition, yes. I was not quoting those remarks to make any point but that this issue has been on the agenda of this Assembly for a very long time and has been in front of whichever government has been in power for a very long time. The previous Chief Minister was looking at a land swap. She was looking at demolition of the buildings on Acton Peninsula. She certainly was looking at a few things that we were not looking at, such as residential and commercial space. It does show that this is an issue that has been around for a long time.
This is an issue that must be handled by this Assembly as a whole as we progress to getting it right. As I have said, we will not enter into any contracts or anything else until the Assembly committee has reported and until this whole Assembly is aware of what we are doing. It does not look like we are ever going to get support from the Opposition on anything with regard to this site, but certainly everybody else will be very well informed and, hopefully, on board.
MR CONNOLLY (4.10): Mr Speaker, I will not re-enter the controversy; but when I referred Mrs Carnell to a question in which she was asked repeatedly for written agreements that she failed to produce, although she now says that there is a legally binding exchange of letters, I referred to a question asked on Tuesday. In fact, the question was asked on Wednesday, so I apologise to the extent that I got that wrong.
That the amendments (Ms Follett’s) be agreed to.
The Assembly voted -
Question so resolved in the negative.
MS HORODNY (4.14): I move:
After the words “money be spent” insert the words “other than assessment of environmental costs and factors including contamination”.
The reason for this amendment is that the motion moved by Mr Berry does not include provision for money to be spent on site assessment and factors including contamination, so I would like to add those words.