Page 2852 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 17 August 2005

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

MR SESELJA: Yes, he does. He has a fine track record of ignoring many people in the community.

As I said about the substance of it, the motion from Dr Foskey is a good one, and we do not have any significant problems. We have been saying for some time that consultation on City Hill is important, and it should be about more than just one proposal. I think it is good to see, however we have arrived at this point.

As I said, I think the claim that Mr Corbell makes that it was he who started this debate is dubious. But, however we have got there, I think it is good that we are now seeing different proposals coming forward. I am sure the majority of members of the government would agree with me that it is good to see different organisations coming out with proposals. I am sure that the task force, as part of its deliberations on the future of Canberra central, will look at those proposals for City Hill. Hopefully, we will get the best out of those three options that have come forward and any future options that may come forward.

I think Dr Foskey is right when she says that community, business, territory and federal governments all have a part to play in the future of City Hill. All these groups do have a part. Current legislation certainly requires that all the different arms of government play a part.

Recently I announced that the opposition has been preparing legislation for the future of City Hill, and this has been in the pipeline for some time and is being progressed. Hopefully, we will be in a position to introduce that soon. I look forward to the support of the minister on that one.

In summary, I am pleased to see that Dr Foskey is supporting the sentiment that we expressed a few weeks ago, and it is encouraging to see Dr Foskey in agreement with us, which does not happen all that often, I guess.

As I stated at the beginning, when we put forward a motion considering lots of different options, the government ripped the guts out of it and gave themselves a pat on the back. I am surprised they have not done the same thing here, but I guess maybe they treat Greens’ motions somewhat differently to how they treat motions that come from the Liberal Party in this place, which is fine. We always like to see the government giving themselves a pat on the back, because certainly someone has to.

In summary, I am happy to support and the opposition is happy to support the motion by Dr Foskey. We look forward to the ongoing debate over the future of not only City Hill but also the centre of Canberra.

MR QUINLAN (Molonglo—Treasurer, Minister for Economic Development and Business, Minister for Tourism, Minister for Sport and Recreation, and Minister for Racing and Gaming) (4.59): I do not recall the detail of the opposition motion, but I will just take with a grain of salt what I have heard today until I refer back to it, if I get the time or the inclination. I rather suspect that there would have been a few marginal differences between what the Liberal Party put forward and what the Greens put forward. If that is not the case, I am sure Dr Foskey would have great reason for concern. This is

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