Page 204 - Week 01 - Thursday, 18 February 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR WOOD: He says, "That is right". I do not know where he has been for the year of this parliament and the three years of the previous parliament. Where has he been? Any committee makes recommendations; Mr Moore's committee, Mr Kaine's committee, committees I have chaired make recommendations. The Government looks at those recommendations and makes its decision. I do not know that I have seen any report that has been accepted without some sort of qualification or variation.
If you want to use the word "distort" do so, but it is a matter of practice in this Assembly that the Government considers a report and then makes its recommendations about that. Mr Cornwell does not seem to know that procedure. He has learnt something today. So the Government put its mark on this report. It is the case, and I am very pleased that it is the case and I willingly acknowledge my role in the process. The Labor Party policy does call for a regional art gallery and the like, and there is nothing particularly inconsistent with Mr Lamont's committee's report because it also mentioned quite clearly that it desired such a facility.
It may be the case that the Government has given a higher priority to this than to other things, but there is nothing unusual about that. It is certainly consistent with the thrust of the select committee I mentioned and with government policy. Indeed, one of the terms of reference of Mr Lamont's committee was that it should attend to each of those. Just to make a further comment on that, it was the committee's preference that this $7m facility be located in North Building, so obviously that has to be very comprehensively explored. The Government also responded that we should at the same time explore the possibilities of a freestanding building in that area - a stand-alone building - for that purpose, and whichever is the more suitable for the purpose will be the one that will emerge in the future. I congratulate Mr Lamont for his report, and I congratulate the members of the committee. The Government, I think, has made an excellent response to it.
Mr Kaine: He did not do it all on his own. In fact, he was just the clerk.
MR LAMONT (10.57), in reply: Mr Kaine's latest interjection, amongst many this morning, is that I did not do it on my own, and Mr Kaine is absolutely correct; I did not. Mr Kaine was intimately involved, as were Ms Szuty and Mr De Domenico and our colleague Ms Ellis. They were intimately involved in the recommendations of this report.
The stupidity of what has been said by the Opposition this morning is borne out by two things. First of all, it was this Assembly that referred the question of the $19m casino premium to the PDI Committee. It was a motion put forward by Ms Szuty and supported by a majority of members of this Assembly - a democratic process that even you, used to the strange counting mechanisms of the Liberal Party - would have to agree with, Mr Kaine.
So what happens is this: We have a committee process that I believe is second to none in relation to the presentation and preparation of this report - not because I chaired it, but because the committee took into account a body of work previously undertaken by the Assembly and also received additional material from the players within this arts and cultural grouping, as well as a range of other areas. It came up with a report after extensive debate in that committee, and all of the recommendations were unanimous.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .