Page 548 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 19 May 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Assembly is left with no option but to agree to this amendment. Whether it makes sense, whether it reveals a breakdown on the part of the Government itself that does not seem to be able to handle its own business, whether it reveals an intention on the part of the Government to do something irrespective of what the outcome of the report is and how much money is spent in the process, the Opposition is left with no option but to agree to the amendment.
I find that a rather odd position to be in, but I think it ought to be on the record that the Opposition has some very real concerns about the way this inquiry is going and the fact that the Government is clearly anticipating the outcome of it. "Why did we ever conduct an inquiry in the first place?", one might ask.
MR HUMPHRIES (3.51): Madam Speaker, I understand that the Government has sought the architect's advice in order to answer a number of technical questions. For example, how many storeys does the South Building have?
Mr Kaine: How many does it have?
MR HUMPHRIES: We will find out when the architect reports.
Mrs Grassby: No; Mr Connolly rang up and found out how many storeys it has.
Mr Connolly: I rang John Turner on the top floor and I said, "Which floor are you on, John?".
MR HUMPHRIES: Did you? I see. Are you sure it was the top floor?
Mr Connolly: He said "the top one".
MR MOORE (3.52): It seems to me, Madam Speaker, that this is a very simple and straightforward motion. It seems to me very sensible to appoint an architect who can assist the committee by working out what is feasible and what is not feasible. The Assembly committee have committed themselves to do so and, if they can be assisted by the work of an architect, that seems very sensible to me.
The most important part of the motion that we are talking about today, though, is the extension of the possible reporting date for the committee so that the committee can get on with the business which the Assembly has charged it with. Therefore, I think there is good reason to support this motion. That the Government has appointed, at its expense, an architect to advise the committee, I think, reflects a positive attitude on the part of the Government to the work of the committee. After all, it was the Government's motion that asked the committee to look into this. It all seems above board to me. It all seems quite appropriate. I am very happy to support the motion.
MS FOLLETT (Chief Minister and Treasurer) (3.53), in reply: Madam Speaker, I thank members for their support of the motion. If they feel that they are owed an apology, then I am happy to provide an apology for putting forward a motion which, as Mr Kaine has pointed out, they can hardly oppose. But I would like to repeat that the reason for our having engaged an architect is to look at options for the redesign or refurbishment of the South Building rather than in any way to pre-empt the committee's decision. Our reason for looking at those options is
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .