Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

None . . Page.. 1068 ..

However, the issues of economic development and science and technology, I think, are important. I have just assured Ms Tucker that, on the issue of science and technology, I am very open-minded as to whether at this stage that goes to the Standing Committee on Tourism and ACT Promotion. However, I think we should rename the committee the Economic Development and Tourism Standing Committee. The biggest advantage of that is that the committee, which Mr Kaine chairs, would have a wider range of possibilities in the way it can operate. For example, being careful not to pre-empt another matter that is on the notice paper - the taxi industry reference - there is an amendment we are currently discussing as to whether or not that reference should go to the Public Accounts Committee or the Planning and Environment Committee. The Planning and Environment Committee currently carries the issue of economic development, and it would seem to me appropriate that we move economic development to the Tourism and ACT Promotion Committee, renaming the committee Economic Development and Tourism Committee, and refer the taxi industry inquiry to that Economic Development and Tourism Committee.

This seems to me to be logical and a better way to distribute the workload the committees take on at this stage. One of the main reasons for this has been the perception amongst some members that the Planning and Environment Committee has a particularly heavy workload, while the Tourism and ACT Promotion Committee could almost fall into a select committee status in the way it is currently framed. I know that the chair of that committee, Mr Kaine, is enthusiastic about ensuring that his committee has a broader range of responsibilities than tourism and ACT promotion. It is also important, when we look at tourism and ACT promotion, that that is done in the context of economic development. One of the main economic development issues for the ACT is tourism - there is no doubt about that - but it also has to fit into the context of economic development rather than being seen as out on its own. If we have an opportunity to distribute the workload more efficiently, that is an opportunity we ought to take.

As I indicated earlier, it is particularly important for us to distribute that workload evenly, and to keep in mind also that this move does not pre-empt any further moves or ongoing discussions about the possibility of splitting the Planning and Environment Committee into two committees. Those discussions are ongoing; I think they are being conducted in good faith by all members, and we need to continue with them. However, we have an opportunity to deal with this and I think it is appropriate that we do so with care.

In looking at the resolution of the Assembly and at the work of our committees, I think it is also important to recognise that there are certain members who serve on a wide range of committees. Mr Kaine is chair of the current Tourism Committee and is also a member of the Planning and Environment Committee, and he recognises the usefulness of this move. But there are other members of the Assembly who serve on one or two committees and who would probably appreciate the opportunity to have a more substantial matter to work on. I think those are particularly good reasons for us to ensure that we take this first step in readjusting the committees but also keep open the process, as we should all through the Assembly, of discussion of committees. I strongly commend this motion to members. I am interested in hearing from other members how they feel about the amendments, which I have discussed with Ms Tucker, who I understand is still considering them.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .