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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 4 Hansard (21 April) . . Page.. 1101 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

Mr Humphries likes to play political games during debates and he was taunting me, saying, "You want no road; you want no road". I did not answer that because obviously it is not a yes/no answer. What we are saying is this: Can we look first at the issue of whether or not we can manage without another road? It may not be possible, but can we at least look? Can we actually look as if we are a city that is interested in moving into the new millennium with a smart approach to transport? It may be necessary to have a road; it may not. We do not know. All we are told by the Government is that we need it. They say they have done the work, which they clearly have not. Mainly this is about the Bruce precinct and it is, once again, a totally inappropriate process.

I hope that we see, as a result of this committee, some kind of comprehensive plan or strategy at last in the ACT. It is not just the Liberal Government or the Labor Government. I can remember Norm Jensen. I remember that there was lobbying going on about this same road when Norm Jensen was in this place. In fact, I was involved in that as a resident. I have a long knowledge of what has happened in this area and in this parliament. I am certainly not just saying it is just this Liberal Government; it is also about the previous Labor Government; and it is about the broad issues. It is not just about whacking in a road.

Amendment (Mr Corbell's ) agreed to.

Motion, as amended, agreed to.


Debate resumed from 24 March 1999, on motion by Mr Berry:

That this Bill be agreed to in principle.

MR SPEAKER: There is a housekeeping item to be dealt with.

Mr Berry: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Bill as submitted does not meet the requirement of the standing orders to ensure that it matches the notice of presentation. The long title of the Bill does not include the words "and for related purpose". It is merely a typographical error that it did not find its way into the Bill. I think, for housekeeping reasons, that it needs to be addressed. I seek leave to proceed with the Bill notwithstanding.

MR SPEAKER: Is leave granted? This is a housekeeping item. The title of the Bill is not as originally proposed. There being no objection, leave is granted. Mr Stefaniak, please continue with the debate.

MR STEFANIAK (Minister for Education) (4.51): Mr Speaker, I spoke earlier with Mr Berry in relation to this and I have just spoken with an officer out the back about some further amendments which still have not been done. They were pointed out to me this morning. I have one lot of amendments which I indicated to Mr Berry I would be moving.

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