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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 4 Hansard (21 April) . . Page.. 1097 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

Mr Speaker, the appropriate way to look at this, contrary to what my ministerial colleagues are putting, is to give that committee the task that the Planning and Environment Committee suggested towards the end of the last Assembly that they should have and proceed with it. I think my ministerial colleagues here would do well to concede that that is the sensible way - to back off and agree with this and vote with me, Mr Corbell and Ms Tucker on this issue, recognising that that is the sensible way to go.

MS TUCKER (4.35): I will speak briefly again although I spoke before, but not particularly on the amendment. I am quite comfortable with the amendment. We worked on it together but I would like to point out - - -

Mr Moore: Are you closing the debate or are you speaking to the amendment?

MS TUCKER: No, I am speaking to the amendment. I would like to point out that my motion was drafted in consultation with the secretariat and was based on their advice that this was the correct process and wording to use in this situation; but if members of the Assembly feel that Mr Corbell's words and this way of presenting it are sufficient then I can accept that.

The critical point for me is that the Government has to wait until the committee has completed its inquiry before it can release the draft plan variation. What Mr Moore said is quite true. It is obvious that Mr Smyth's protestations about duplication do not bear a lot of weight because, obviously, if the Urban Services Committee's inquiry into the draft variation is informed by what comes out of this inquiry there will not be a lot of duplication at all. It should be a very short and snappy inquiry into the draft variation.

The aspect of my motion left out of Mr Corbell's amendment is that I wanted the Government to make a statement in the Assembly about what it has done in response to the points I have raised as I felt that this would give the Government's response more public exposure. This statement could then be referred to the committee for detailed examination. Mr Corbell's amendment merely refers these matters directly to the committee. I would, therefore, like Mr Corbell's assurance that he will be pushing for the committee to request the Government to cover all the points in my motion in its submission to the inquiry, and that the committee will adequately address the specific issues raised in my motion.

MR SMYTH (Minister for Urban Services): Mr Speaker, I seek leave to speak a second time.

Leave granted.

MR SMYTH: I think the points have been well canvassed. The Government still opposes this. Mr Stanhope says it is some sort of subterfuge and that we should be ashamed of ourselves. I have made it quite clear right from the start that this was the next step in the process; that it was only the draft variation to reserve the area upon which the road would go.

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