Page 4240 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 23 October 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Amendment negatived.
MS LE COUTEUR (Murrumbidgee) (3.47): It is very disappointing to see the ALP turning important long-term infrastructure planning for our city into a political stunt. A sensible, considered debate about infrastructure, in particular transport, is always welcome. The Greens have been part of these debates in the past and I sincerely hope to be part of them in the future. However, the debate does not start with a motion describing the opposition as sanctimonious and using words like “disdain”.
The Greens cannot support Ms Cody’s motion, and Miss C Burch’s amendment has the same unhelpful words, so we did not support that either. Hoping it will be third time lucky, I move:
Omit all text after “That this Assembly”, substitute:
“(1) notes:
(a) the ACT Government recently released a long-term infrastructure plan for the ACT;
(b) long-term planning is critical for ensuring that infrastructure is delivered for the community on time and at a reasonable cost, as well as providing certainty for businesses and the construction industry;
(c) concerns from infrastructure experts that politicisation of the infrastructure planning process can lead to wasted funds and important projects being delivered late;
(d) Members of the Assembly support the majority of projects listed in the Infrastructure Plan, which are sensible and non-controversial; and
(e) there will be valid differences between political parties on some projects and the ACT community will benefit from a sensible and considered debate on these projects that does not unnecessarily politicise the process; and
(2) calls on Members of the Assembly to carefully consider future infrastructure projects against environmental, social and economic criteria.”.
I circulated the amendment this morning, so I am sure members have had the time to look at it.
MR ASSISTANT SPEAKER: Ms Le Couteur, you need to seek leave to move the amendment.
MS LE COUTEUR: Why do I need leave? I have not spoken before.
MR ASSISTANT SPEAKER: Sorry, Ms Le Couteur. Continue.
MS LE COUTEUR: That is why I did not speak earlier: so that I did not need leave. I am trying to follow the rules of this place. Proper infrastructure planning is vital for the ACT community. Let me give a few examples.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video