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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 5 Hansard (14 May) . . Page.. 1430 ..

MR OSBORNE (5.19), in reply: Mr Speaker, I must admit that I am a little confused after having heard some speakers today. I thought we had universal support; but, after listening firstly to Ms Horodny and then to Mr Kaine, I am not quite sure whether I should support my own motion.

There are a couple of points I would like to add, Mr Speaker. I heard Mr Humphries and Ms Horodny arguing, saying, "You show me this and I will show you that", and, "You prove this and I will prove that". The main reason I put up this motion was that no-one could prove anything. Mr Darlington made some outrageous comments. I was provided with some information from certain people which was quite distressing, but without having proof I did not think it was prudent of me to come out publicly and make some outrageous claim. That was the main reason behind my putting up this motion in the Assembly. I thank Mr Corbell for his support and the Labor Party's support, and for his sensible amendments. I thank the Government. I thank the Greens too. Ms Horodny says they are going to support it.

I would like to talk about the issue Mr Kaine raised about the plasma converter. Mr Kaine reminded us that the chimney is only seven years old. Mr Speaker, I do not think we should dismiss the new technology of the plasma converter. What it does, allegedly, is break waste down something like 300 to one, with no emissions. Given the urgent need to reduce landfill, I would argue that this in itself warrants looking at. As I said, there are no emissions and it converts energy and breaks down all the different items that go into it something like 300 to one. I do not think we should discount it just because we have an incinerator that is only seven years old. Technology changes year by year. Things are superseded. If some of the claims made by the plasma converter organisation are true, then I would argue that expenditure of $1m, $2m or $3m in the long run is warranted.

I thank members for their support. I must admit that I am a little disappointed that Ms Horodny attempted to generate a bit of ill feeling over this motion, when the Labor Party and the Government were quite sensible in what they had to say. Nevertheless, I thank members for their support.

Motion, as amended, agreed to.

MR BERRY (5.23): I will keep this as brief as I can, given the lateness of the hour. Mr Speaker, I move:

That this Assembly requires the Minister for Health and Community Care to provide within 24 hours:

(1) a copy of all details which led to the adjustment to ACT Public Hospital waiting lists referred to in the Assembly by the Minister; and

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