None . . Page.. 1537 ..
I think Mr Wood and Mr Moore raised this issue in their comments. It is extremely important that we not get a situation where any one interest prevails over the other. The national capital concerns are important. They do deserve to be protected. If we have financial considerations which might tempt us to want to cut corners with respect to planning issues, we should rightly be bounced by someone who is acting in the national interest. For example, I would envisage that you could have an authority comprising five or seven members, with an equal number of representatives from the ACT and New South Wales governments and with a chair or a chair and, possibly, other members with a national stature to act as independent members on that authority. There would be some benefits in having a certain amount of independence from the total control of any one government.
Mr Moore made reference to a strategic plan. Anybody who views the task of establishing a strategic plan in the ACT in the light of this problem of conflict between the two authorities would have to be concerned about how effective that would be. Mr Moore referred to how much better it would be if we could consider national capital issues as we are considering the nature of a strategic plan for the Territory. Indeed, that is almost essential. We will need to work out how we do that, even if we do not have the cooperation of or integration between those two authorities.
I hope that this motion receives the support of all members of this place and that we can move towards constructive negotiations with members of the Federal Parliament, to see whether such a model can ultimately be put in place. I know that there are supporters of this proposal in both major parties in the Federal Parliament; there are probably opponents also. I hope that, by sending a signal about this Territory's willingness to share that responsibility, we can get the ball rolling on constructive negotiations at that level.
Debate (on motion by Ms Horodny) adjourned.
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION (AMENDMENT) BILL 1995
Debate resumed from 21 June 1995, on motion by Mr Berry:
That this Bill be agreed to in principle.
Debate (on motion by Mr De Domenico) adjourned.