Page 1667 - Week 05 - Thursday, 8 May 2008
that they could go was to recommend that no further action be taken by the Assembly in relation to the submission.
I say I have some sympathy, Mr Speaker, because I have a bit of personal interest in this matter. My husband tried the same thing in 2004, but was unable to, again because of the rulings of the committee. I will try not to reflect on the debate; I can see what you are about to say, so I do say that it is—
MR SPEAKER: It is good to have a bit of accurate mind-reading.
MRS BURKE: I was, and I could see. I am just trying to tell you that I have a degree of sympathy. I know that it is frustrating for people in the community to wonder why, when they feel they have been wronged and it comes before the house or before the admin and procedure committee, we are not able to come to a resolution that they are happy with. Despite people feeling that things have been out in the public arena, and that people would readily identify them or their company, it is often, sadly, the case that there would not be too many people who make the intrinsic links that people do when they are making representations.
I will keep it short because I am mindful of what we have on tonight. In summary, the report handed down recommends that no further action be taken by the Assembly in relation to the submission. We have taken into account everything that was provided to us. On that basis, whilst I have some sympathy, unfortunately on this occasion it will be going no further.
DR FOSKEY (Molonglo) (6.23): Mr Speaker, I rise to speak against the motion—knowing, of course, that it is futile and that the report will be adopted. I wish to express my dissent to the findings of the committee on administration and procedure. I note that appendix A of your report—your very slim and lean report—says:
Where a person or a corporation who has been referred to by name, or in such way as to be readily identified in the Assembly, makes a submission in writing to the Speaker …
I am not sure, but I understand that the committee’s conclusion was based perhaps to some extent on the fact that Curfew 4 Canberra was not named. It is hardly surprising that Curfew 4 Canberra was not named by the Chief Minister, because his understanding of the meeting was so poor. Let me quote:
… that there were four Canberrans at the meeting. The rest, less four—and the four do not include Dr Foskey and Mr Gentleman—the entire other membership at the meeting in relation to the master plan on aircraft noise were residents of Queanbeyan, Jerrabomberra and Wamboin.
That is indeed a misrepresentation. I am very sorry that the committee decided not to give Curfew 4 Canberra a right of reply. I feel that they were in order to ask for that right. I will be very interested to see if that right is ever granted; it certainly has not been in the two cases that I have had before me in this Assembly.
I look forward to that. In this case, I believe it should have been granted; however, I must accept the committee’s conclusions.