Page 571 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 20 March 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Moore: You delay it. You do not understand what veto means; you do not even understand how to use your own veto.
MR SPEAKER: Order!
MR KAINE: Mr Speaker, in the space of two or three days Mr Moore goes from a position of upholding the sanctity of the Supreme Court process in relation to one case, to a position where he sought my aid to circumvent that same process in five other cases. Now he wants an officer with the same powers as an officer of the Supreme Court to take over the whole lot.
In adopting these divergent approaches, Mr Moore demonstrates his fundamental lack of balance on this issue. In effect, he wishes to seize on any mechanism available to him to prevent development - any mechanism. His views do not operate from the context of any considered theoretical framework; it is opportunism on a day-to-day basis - what is best for Michael Moore?
Mr Moore: They are based on what is best in the Metropolitan Policy Plan. I work everything from the Metropolitan Policy Plan; it is totally consistent.
MR SPEAKER: Order! Order!
MR KAINE: It is a very easy stance to take if you are in a position like that of Mr Moore - - -
Mr Moore: Debate the topic, not attack the person.
MR KAINE: You know that you will never be faced with the responsibility of government, and nor will you be expected to bear the cost of developments which are held up by your actions.
Mr Moore: That is all right, you will not be again either. You have got to wear the cost of allowing them to go ahead.
MR SPEAKER: Order! Order! Mr Moore, please.
MR KAINE: The Alliance Government has developed a balanced approach to encouraging but controlling development. We approach decisions on these matters from a particular framework of balancing a range of interests. It will be instructive to outline our approach in the context of examining Mr Moore's motion. Put simply, Mr Moore's position, this week, is to blow the whistle, stop all development in Civic and have an inquiry - have another inquiry. This would hold up developments in Civic which have already been planned which involve a total investment of well in excess of $100m. This suggestion totally ignores the planning and development framework within which we operate and would totally pre-empt the process for the development of the national capital and Territory plans. We are to just set that all aside while we engage in an inquiry which would take at least two years to satisfy Mr Moore's conditions.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .