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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 8 Hansard (25 August) . . Page.. 2449 ..

MS TUCKER (6.33): I seek leave to move two amendments together.

Leave granted.

MS TUCKER: I move:

Paragraphs (1) (a) and (1) (b), omit the paragraphs.

Paragraph (2) (a), after "Commonwealth", insert "if necessary".

I do not particularly want to get into the discussion about the history. I do not have enough information with me to make a decision tonight. Labor has letters and the Chief Minister has referred to letters that I have not seen. I do not think the history is necessary for this debate anyway. That is why I have moved that paragraphs 1(a) and 1(b) be deleted.

I listened to Mr Moore's arguments about paragraph 1(c). My understanding of paragraph 1(c) is that it is a criticism of the initial study. Mr Moore - I am quoting him directly - said, "We had already made a decision but then we listened to the society and we looked at Yarralumla". "We had already made a decision", I heard him say.

Mr Moore: And we changed the decision.

MS TUCKER: But, as I understand it, Mr Moore, 1(c) is saying that the initial consultation for the relocation study was a failure. No-one is saying that Mr Moore has not consulted since then. We know he has. The point is that it is an ad hoc process that has occurred. The criticism in this motion, as I understand it, is of the initial relocation study. That is what is being criticised. I would like Mr Stanhope, when he wraps this debate up, to clarify whether that was his intention. I have been told by the Hospice and Palliative Care Society and other people that they were concerned about the initial process.

The other thing that I heard Mr Moore say - and I am quoting him directly - was that, having had the feasibility study, he was approached. Once again, he was acknowledging that a decision had been made; that a process had been completed. That is what I understood 1(c) to be about. If that is the case, 1(c) seems to be quite supportable, because it deals with the concern that has come to all members of the Assembly from the Hospice and Palliative Care Society

We know that Mr Moore has been listening since. We can give him credit for that. He does not have to be so terribly offended. We are acknowledging that since then he has been listening. But it has been an ad hoc process. These people went for a drive and they came up with a site. Is that good process? Is that a rigorous process? Then the Government said, "Okay, we will add Yarralumla". And now we hear them saying, "Okay, we will add this and that". That is not a good process. I think it is reasonable to have concern about that. If it had all been opened up - - -

Mr Smyth: Because the Hospice and Palliative Care Society kept changing what they wanted.

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