Page 1821 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 5 May 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Having said all that, it is a pity that, through this motion, Ms Le Couteur, you adopt the usual adversarial approach to these issues of the Liberal Party. Perhaps you are just rubbing shoulders a bit too closely with them, Ms Le Couteur.
I have circulated an amendment. Ms Le Couteur, the government are happy to support the vast majority of your motion, about 90 per cent or more of it. There are a few issues in there, as I explained to you, that I believe the government would require some further advice on before we commit to them. I have proposed that we investigate some of the matters that you would call upon us to simply deliver. I seek leave to move the amendments circulated in my name together.
Leave granted.
MR STANHOPE: I move:
(1) In paragraph (2)(b), omit “formalise”, substitute “investigate formalising”.
(2) Omit paragraphs (2)(c)(ii) and (iii).
(3) In paragraph (2)(d), omit “improve”, substitute “investigate improving”.
(4) In paragraph (2)(d)(i), omit “involving children in the planning process”.
We support the thrust, the intent and the good intentions of Ms Le Couteur and look forward to working with her as we pursue those investigations and further studies in relation to each of those issues. And I hope we get some positive outcomes from them. There are a couple that we would prefer to remove. At this stage I simply do not know enough about the implications to actually send even a signal that we would commit to those. The others I see as essentially something we are more than prepared to investigate, to study, to take advice on and perhaps to adopt. But there are a couple of notions there that I simply do not know enough about. I will accept that. I need to take some advice on it and, subject to the outcomes of that, it might be that we are happy to revisit them in the future.
At 6.00 pm, in accordance with standing order 34, the debate was interrupted. The motion for the adjournment of the Assembly having been put and negatived, the debate was resumed.
MR COE (Ginninderra) (6.01): The opposition are satisfied with some of the items in this motion but there are quite a few that we are not satisfied with. To that end, we will be supporting Mr Stanhope’s amendments because we do believe they do make the motion a better motion but, on balance, we will not be supporting the motion even if it is amended, simply because we think there are a number of issues in here that have either not been thoroughly thought out or that we actually do disagree with.
On the issue of sustainability, one of the things that we so frequently forget about is economic sustainability. If we do not have sustainability when it comes to the economics, it means that we are not actually able to do things into the future. I fear that that is what will happen with many of these initiatives that have been discussed
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video