Page 3614 - Week 14 - Tuesday, 8 December 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR LAMONT (5.13), in reply: There are a couple of points that I wish to address - most importantly, those made by Mr Moore and Ms Szuty. Mr Moore ungraciously attributed a certain attitude to me. I do not believe that what he said would be supported by members of the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Committee in respect of the conduct of the business of that committee. He may suggest that it is bullying, but I am outraged that a member of a committee that I chair - I would feel the same if it were a member of a committee that I was a member of - should suggest that every opportunity had not been given to her to address the points she wished to address. In this case that is simply wrong.
Mr Moore: I did not suggest that. I am not a member of the committee.
MR LAMONT: No, but your comment about haste was predicated on what you believe may have happened. As you have now interjected, you do not know what has happened. Where you do not know, you will make it up. That is quite clear in relation to a number of comments that you made.
Yes, I am concerned that the integrity of members of the committee that I chair has been brought into question. The whole process of the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Committee that we have carefully nurtured since the inception of this Assembly has been called into question. The veracity of each of the members of the PDI Committee has been called into question. That, to me, is quite simply an outrage.
Members have defended their own integrity and the collective integrity of the committee. I say to Ms Szuty, Mr Moore and other members of the Assembly that with my last dying breath I will defend the right of any member of this Assembly to hold a dissenting view or a view different from mine. But, in defending their right to do so, there is a mark beyond which I believe it is improper to go. This afternoon I believe that we have seen Ms Szuty go beyond that mark in the comments that she has made about the integrity and the veracity of members of the committee. That will in no way affect the way in which I, as chair of that committee, intend to continue to carry out my duties and obligations. I believe that the same would apply to the way in which the other members of the committee discharge their responsibilities. Let us get that on the record, to start with. That is hardly what I would consider to be a bully boy position, Mr Moore.
Let us have a look at a couple of the specific issues. Mr Kaine raised the question of the public notification required under the legislation when matters are referred to the PDI Committee from the Planning Authority. It is at fault and should be rectified. The Planning Authority indicated to the PDI Committee, when this matter was drawn to their attention some weeks ago by Father Morozow, that indeed it is a matter which they will redress expeditiously, to ensure that the public notice goes out prior to the committee actually dealing with the matter. One of the problems and one of the reasons why it is an issue - - -
Mr Kaine: That will be very helpful, Mr Chairman.
MR LAMONT: Thank you. One of the reasons why it is an issue is that the existing legislation requires that the notification of a reference to the PDI Committee appear in a Saturday newspaper. I think that provision of the legislation was brought about by the requirements of Mr Moore. It was a quite proper proposition when you consider that Saturday's Canberra Times has the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .