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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 10 Hansard (23 September) . . Page.. 3521 ..

MS DUNDAS (continuing):

to step down or resign his ministry. It is calling for him to rethink the way he is approaching his position and the way he is approaching this Assembly.

What the original motion called for, as has been repeatedly said today, was negotiation to protect some magnificent trees. The minister has said, "No ifs, no buts", but he would not even try to see how these trees could be protected.

I am trying very hard not to reflect on the debate but, from memory, the motion that I moved on that day had been sitting on the notice paper for a couple of months before it was debated. It was not a surprise motion. The minister could have moved amendments. We have seen amendments moved many times during private members' day, not only by non-government members but by government members, to motions put forward by private members, to make them work and to help find a position that everybody can agree with. Sometimes that happens and sometimes it does not.

However, a blanket "We do not think the motion is workable so we are just going to ignore it"is not an adequate response. We could have had a more lengthy debate. The minister has raised some very interesting points today that, from my recollection, were not raised during the debate on the substantive motion and which might have prompted us to move amendments. However, that information was not provided to us that day.

The minister's reaction of "No, this is unworkable so we are not even going to try"gives me cause to be concerned about his respect for this Assembly, for the majority of this Assembly, and for the democratic processes in this Assembly. He did not put forward an alternative. He did not even think he should try to negotiate, see what was possible and then report to the Assembly. The report could have said, "I tried but, under current constraints, I cannot."Then we could have had a further debate about planning laws, about policy laws and about interim tree protection legislation, which we still have.

I do not want to go into the details of the Nettlefold Street trees because we have had that debate, but I am disappointed in the minister's attitude to the outcome. As has been noted, it is not just about the motion of 27 August in relation to the Nettlefold Street trees, it is also about motions earlier this year on the Gungahlin town centre marketplace and consultations.

Mr Corbell: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The censure is about my failure, or alleged failure, to do certain things in relation to the Nettlefold Street trees. I do not think it is appropriate to raise other issues which are not the substance of the censure. If members want to censure me on those things, they are entitled to, and they should give me an opportunity to respond, but that is not the substance of the matter before the chair.

Mrs Dunne: On the point of order, Mr Speaker: the issue raised by Ms Dundas is not new material and it goes to the character of the man.

Mr Wood: It is part of another consideration.

Mr Quinlan: We are debating his character, are we?

Mr Corbell: We are not debating my character.

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