Page 3431 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 25 November 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Moore: It is not.
MR LAMONT: It certainly is. If it is not, then why will you not accept the amendment that we are proposing, which makes it unequivocal that it is not exclusive? You cannot, Mr Moore, and the reason you cannot is that it would not allow you to make a cheap political point. It would not allow you to continue to run a bankrupt argument. Your argument has no currency.
Mr Humphries: I can see him squirming a bit there.
MR LAMONT: You can? It is the chair. It is the size of the chair. Madam Speaker, the simple position is that if Mr Moore argues that his motion is not an exclusive proposition he should support our amendment. Otherwise, there is no choice. That is what it means.
MR DE DOMENICO (12.18): Madam Speaker, I was not going to stand up and say anything in this debate, but I heard a few statements made by various speakers that cause me to stand to say just a few words. I heard Mr Moore say that we should be developing the Acton Peninsula site in a sensible way. From what I heard of Mr Moore's remarks, his definition of a sensible way seemed to reflect only his point of view, as if he were the only one in this place who was sensible. I agree with Mr Wood that Mr Moore is not the sole repository of sensitivity, knowledge and vision in this Assembly. That is point No. 1.
The word that I did not hear Mr Moore or Mr Stevenson talk about is the word "reality". As Mr Lamont quite correctly said, after obviously discussing it with Mr Kaine outside, the reality of the situation, notwithstanding what we might agree or disagree with it, is that there is no chance of the Royal Canberra Hospital being retained. That is a fact. People may disagree or agree with that, but that is the reality. With that in mind, I tend to agree with the paper that has been alluded to. We have a unique opportunity in the ACT to create for Acton Peninsula and West Basin a new vision which is not solely embodied in Mr Moore.
Mr Moore: Where the city meets the lake?
MR DE DOMENICO: The joint paper, yes. Like Mr Moore, I do not agree entirely with some of the sentiments in the discussion paper, but I do agree with some parts of the document. I accept that Mr Moore is entitled to have his view, but so are other people in this Assembly. For Mr Moore to stand up and say that vision is something that only he possesses is not reality.
Mr Stevenson's comments were interesting. He said that politicians think that they know better. Mr Moore and Mr Stevenson should realise that politicians do not walk in here without being elected by the community. As I used the word "reality" before, I will use it again. The reality is that 87 per cent of the community disagree with Mr Moore, Ms Szuty and Mr Stevenson. Whether you like it or you do not, 87 per cent of the community disagree with some of the views of Mr Moore, Mr Stevenson and Ms Szuty. That is a fact as well.
Mr Kaine quite correctly said that a consultative process has been going on in the community for a considerable length of time. I repeat that that process was begun by the former Alliance Government of which Mr Kaine was Chief Minister. I agree with Mr Kaine and some of the remarks made by Mr Lamont and Mr Wood. You cannot, all of a sudden, stop the consultation process just because
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .