Page 3259 - Week 12 - Thursday, 19 November 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
with a closer look at that, that the Government, rather than just saying that there is no evidence, will say that there is no sustainable evidence or give a little more detail. Perhaps the Minister or the department that prepared the responses is aware of more detail on that.
If one person suggests that you have a problem, I accept that that does not necessarily mean that there is a problem. Before you would spend money on research like that you would want to have some corroboration of that evidence. Perhaps that is an issue that the Minister might like to consider. My response here also recognises the same thing. We are not going to make demands on any department or any government to spend massive amounts of money. We have been through the process with our Estimates Committee; we understand exactly where the money goes and what sorts of decisions have to be made. If you are going to put money into one thing it has to come out of somewhere else. I think that that consciousness on the part of committee members is one of the reasons why our committee reports are so often well received by government.
The other interesting thing for me was the outright rejection of recommendation 10.7.4 - that the Government examine jointly with the New South Wales Government the feasibility of retaining and protecting the Queanbeyan-Cooma railway line as a heritage item. The Government's response was:
Not agreed. This is not an ACT Government heritage issue, as the line lies in NSW.
We all have on the backs of our cars the stickers that refer to the Canberra region, and I think that that is a very narrow response to that recommendation. The recommendation recognised that that line lay in New South Wales, but it was suggested that there was reason to examine it for heritage significance. Rather than saying, "Absolutely no, we are not going to look at it", it may be an important issue to bring up in the context of regional discussions. I still urge the Minister to take it up in that way. Had the recommendation been interpreted as saying, "Let the ACT put lots of money into this and work out joint expenditure with New South Wales", perhaps that type of response would have been warranted. I feel that it does need to be looked at carefully in the context of regional responsibilities.
We have to be careful that regional responsibilities are not taken on board only when they suit us. There will be times when regional responsibility will mean that the ACT does not get an advantage but that the area as a whole will. It may well be that in the not too distant future such a heritage item might be of particular interest, considering the number of train buffs there are around the place. It is something I have no understanding of. I do not understand why people have this great love for getting onto old steam trains and chugging along.
Mr De Domenico: It is fantastic.
MR MOORE: Whenever I say something like this there is somebody around who immediately jumps to the defence of old trains, for some reason.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .