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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 8 Hansard (25 August) . . Page.. 2453 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

perhaps rather unnecessarily and antagonistic paragraphs from the motion. In retrospect, I am perhaps sorry they were in there. They have diverted us from the point of the motion.

The point of the motion is that I do not believe we can have any satisfaction that we are going to get the best result out of this process. The process has not been as good as it should have been. I am very concerned that if we simply go ahead to a Cabinet meeting next Tuesday this community cannot have confidence that it is getting the best possible result. I commend this motion. I think it is important that we take a deep breath and step back and that there be more consultation by Mr Moore. I do acknowledge the gesture that Mr Moore made yesterday and that was reported today. I do acknowledge that he did identify two other sites. I would like him to take a deep breath, step back and do it again a little bit more slowly so that we can make sure we get it right.

We should not pay a penalty now in having to wait a couple of more weeks as a result of the fact that, despite the fact that we knew that the licence to occupy the site was going to expire on 30 June, we simply did not get our act together. It cannot be disputed that that is the problem. We should not suffer in the future as a result of that failing. For us to crash this through on the basis that we have to be out of the hospice by 31 December next year is simply not good enough.

Amendments agreed to.

MR SPEAKER: The question now is: That the motion, as amended, be agreed to.

Mr Moore: Mr Speaker, I request that you divide the motion into two, the first part being 1(c) and the second part the rest being the remainder taken as a whole. I only want to oppose subparagraph (c). That would still leave a sensible motion.

MR SPEAKER: Is leave granted to divide the motion? There being no objection, that course will be followed. The question is: That paragraph 1(c) be agreed to.

Question resolved in the negative.

MR SPEAKER: The question now is: That the motion, as further amended, be agreed to.

Question resolved in the affirmative.


Debate resumed from 2 July 1999, on motion by Mr Osborne:

That this Bill be agreed to in principle.

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