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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 11 Hansard (25 September) . . Page.. 3357 ..

Ms Follett: And Gungahlin.

MR HUMPHRIES: Well, okay; Gungahlin pond, if you like, yes.

Mr Stefaniak: Is it in?

MR HUMPHRIES: No; it is not actually in there. Gungahlin is not in there. All those parts of those three lakes are constantly the subject of requests for different uses. I would dare say that every week the Government gets a request to have some different use of the lakes or the foreshores. What we are saying is: If the Assembly happens not to be sitting between when the request is made and when the proposal is meant to operate, we cannot authorise the change in use. It is a very odd way of punishing the Government; you are punishing members of the public who might be in that difficult position. Mr Speaker, I would ask members to reconsider the effect of this motion.

MR STEFANIAK (Minister for Education and Training) (12.06): Mr Speaker - - -

Ms McRae: We thought he closed the debate.

MR STEFANIAK: No, I have not spoken yet. Further to Mr Humphries's points: It is quite conceivable that in February 1998 those opposite may well be the next government of the ACT and this would affect very much their ability, as Mr Humphries has quite correctly stated, to allow sensible use of the lakes. I say that quite seriously. That is something that affects anyone who is on this side of the house. That could come back and bite you. If you support Mr Moore's motion and not the amendment you are, I think, hoist with your own petard. Let us be a little more realistic. Yes, you could have done something else; maybe something like a condemnation motion would have been more appropriate if you did not like what happened in relation to the futsal slab.

Quite clearly, Canberra does need to be a lively city. We do need events. We live in a very highly competitive country, too. Other States are busting their guts, basically, to get major events to their States and Territories. We do have an excellent city, with a lot of attractions for people; and people want to use our facilities. They want to see our facilities used - used properly, yes; but used. The effect of this motion is to shut down one of our major resources and a resource people get a lot of pleasure out of, and rightly so. If the Labor Party supports Mr Moore's motion, that is exactly what you will be doing; and I am sure it is going to come back to bite you.

Really, this motion smacks of NIMBYism. It is not terribly well thought out. I think Mr Moore could have gone about it in a much better way than he has. Mr Humphries's amendment, I think, gives sufficient protection to what I assume the intent behind Mr Moore's aims is. But if you support Mr Moore's motion as it is you will be crucifying, I think, a lot of proper use of the lakes and causing a lot of people in Canberra a lot of angst. You will be stopping a lot of sensible events going ahead, and that is going to come back and bite you.

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