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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 11 Hansard (25 September) . . Page.. 3397 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

For example, a few weeks ago the NCA advised us, rather late, I might point out - in fact, after the event - that they proposed to land some seaplanes on the lake. There were no public works associated with that - there is already a jetty there and that is where the seaplanes pull up - but there was very certainly a new use of the lake. There is a distinction between uses and public works, and that is not clear in this amendment.

Ms McRae: It is the same as Michael's. It says "new use".

MR HUMPHRIES: It also says, "or in other words new Public Works". I do not know what the amendment means, and, as the Minister who is partly responsible for administering that, I would be a little unsure about what exactly was required. I would say to members that, rather than create confusion, they should not support a motion that is not clear.

Question put:

That the amendment be agreed to.

The Assembly voted -

AYES, 6	 	NOES, 11

Mr Berry	Mrs Carnell
Ms Follett	Mr Cornwell
Ms McRae	Mr De Domenico
Ms Reilly	Mr Hird
Mr Whitecross	Ms Horodny
Mr Wood		Mr Humphries
		Mr Kaine
		Mr Moore
		Mr Osborne
		Mr Stefaniak
		Ms Tucker

Question so resolved in the negative.

MS HORODNY (4.09): Mr Speaker, I move:

Add "Further, that the Government only consider new uses that will contribute to the ACT's economy in an ecologically sustainable and socially equitable manner.".

What I am saying in this amendment is that, if the proposal for a new use around any of the lakes of the ACT is for something like a car rally, I suggest that you do not even bother to bring it to the Assembly.

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