Page 3624 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 13 September 2017
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
bush. This is really important for our mental health and it is also really important for our regard for nature, for realising that we are part of the natural environment. So, yes: a big tick for this. I wish I lived closer to Mount Taylor and walked up there more often than I do.
When I drive along Sulwood Drive, it is very obvious that this is not a safe car park; it is not a safe intersection. You take your life in your hands trying to go across there. Clearly something needs to be done. I think we have universal agreement in this Assembly on that point. Also, I am pleased that we have universal agreement on Ms Fitzharris’s amendment that we call on the government to investigate those improvements.
As Minister Fitzharris said, the ACT government has a lot of requests for improvements. We all, as members of the Assembly, get a lot of requests for improvements, and we are in an impossible position in trying to determine what the priorities should be; we simply do not have the information to do that. That is why last sitting period I moved the motion about a participatory budgeting trial. There is a very large desire for work by the government to be done in Canberra, as in other jurisdictions. There is a finite government budget. We have to work out the best ways of making our decisions as to which is the highest priority. I simply do not have the information to know whether this should be the highest priority or whether something else should be. The process by which MLAs move motions about it has some political advantages, possibly, but I think in the long run this is really not the way we should allocate our budgets. I am very glad to see the amendment, which makes it clear that this is not how we are going to determine the TCCS budget.
I do not think for one minute that this was Mr Parton’s intention, and I note that he has agreed to the investigation. We are all aware that this is important and that there are lots of other important things. I will not bother going through the wonderful features of Mount Taylor; the previous speakers, particularly Mr Steel and Mr Parton, have gone through that at much greater length and more eloquently than I can, due to their much greater exposure to Mount Taylor. I have only been up to the top a few times in my life, I must admit. But I wholeheartedly support the intent of the original motion and I will be supporting the amendment and then the motion as amended.
MR PARTON (Brindabella) (12.30): Before I speak to the amendment and close the debate, can I say that I am most disappointed that Mr Steel must respond to every single issue in such a partisan way. I am not sure how we ended up talking about Kambah Shops and green bins during this debate, but we did. I do know that for Mr Steel it is always about the war. Everything is about the war, is it not? Everything for Mr Steel is about us versus them. Here is a bloke who has publicly questioned whether he should accept my yes vote in the same-sex marriage debate because he does not believe that I am passionate enough about the cause.
Here is an elected Liberal—me—who is very openly voting yes and advocating that others do so but, because Mr Steel’s sole focus is on the political battle, he has declared in RiotACT that my support is highly dismissive and patronising. I think Mr Steel should know that my support for the yes vote, for the reasons I have highlighted, resonates with a bucketload of conservative voters and that it is about the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video