Page 2816 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 22 November 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
motion. The Rally does not support this motion and you cannot expect the conservation movement to accept this proposal.
Mr Whalan: I rise on a point of order. Mr Collaery is obviously experiencing health difficulties as a result of the infection in his arm, Mr Speaker, and I think he should be assisted by having the facts pointed out to him. His rather bizarre behaviour is inconsistent with the manner in which you conduct the affairs of this Assembly. Telling untruths and reflecting upon the character and indeed good nature of members of this Assembly are totally inappropriate. If necessary, we should give him leave, if he can provide a medical certificate.
MR SPEAKER: Thank you, Deputy Chief Minister. Please proceed, Mr Collaery.
MR COLLAERY: Thank you, Mr Speaker. They were amazingly pious comments coming from the man opposite me. Let us not call it the Moore motion. Let us call it what it is, the Whalan-Moore motion. The Rally does not support this motion, and you cannot expect the conservation movement to accept this proposal. No doubt some of the reasons that will be advanced if this motion goes ahead are that all the appointments are made by the Minister. The Minister will be and is likely to be, in effect, Mr Whalan, and that is why I called it their motion. The conservationist, if indeed that would really be an accurate description of the person who would be appointed to wear that label, would be stifled by the Moore-Whalan development blanket, called, as we have heard already in this house, commercial-in-confidence.
Mr Moore: I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is absolute nonsense. Mr Collaery should remain relevant, Mr Speaker. He is not speaking about what is in the motion at all, but about his own concept of what he thinks ought to be in the motion. He should stick to detail.
MR SPEAKER: Please stick to the point, Mr Collaery.
MR COLLAERY: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Mr Moore says that penalties should be provided for any breach of commercial confidence, and that is the most amazing thing I have heard. Here was Mr Moore, coming from the Reid area, saying that penalties should be provided for a breach of commercial confidence. I cannot believe those words.
The other reason why we cannot support this motion is that there is far too much discretion left in the hands of the council. The requirements for an EIS or an EIA must be set out in such a way that there is a minimum residue of discretion left to determine whether or not an EIS should be required. These criteria are by no means settled, but the criteria should include, firstly, scheduled site or resource type, for example, any place which is on the ACT heritage register, any place which is within certain
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .