Page 458 - Week 02 - Thursday, 3 March 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Lamont: For 48 hours, since Tuesday, because the community group wanted to discuss it with Access Economics. It could have been tabled last Thursday.
MR MOORE: For 48 hours, Mr Lamont indicates.
Mr Wood: It was to be the arbiter, was it not? That was your intention. There was to be no further discussion; this was to say yes or no.
MR MOORE: I will take the two interjections, Madam Speaker. I will take Mr Lamont's first, then I will take Mr Wood's interjection about the arbiter. The first interjection from Mr Lamont said that it was 48 hours. This is from the same Mr Lamont who would have had trouble meeting in one other committee I was on because his diary was so full over that particular time. Mine is in exactly the same position. I am not being critical of him in that way; I am saying that we have a lot of things to do in a sitting week, and that makes it very difficult to find the time - - -
Mr Lamont: Not according to Mr Humphries. We have nothing to do. We do not do any work at all, according to Mr Humphries.
MR MOORE: I realise that Mr Humphries has a different view. On the other hand, we have an interjection from Mr Wood that they are to be the arbiter. That is not true, Mr Wood. The final arbiter is this Assembly. I understand the point you were trying to make and I will address that. The point you were trying to make was that Access Economics was providing the final piece of information for us upon which to make our decision.
Mr Wood: No, not information.
MR MOORE: They were providing their opinion, and they have done that very carefully. In a short while I will be going through an analysis of that very good report from Access Economics. I want to start this morning by making it very clear in the initial instance that I think the committee report and the work of the committee are a very positive contribution on this matter. The second thing I want to make very clear is that the independent economic assessment by Access Economics is also a very positive document, and that is something I will deal with.
The document is not one that we should simply read as a final statement and accept that the Minister's interpretation of that final statement says it all. That is not the case. It is important that each of us very carefully understand what is in this document. If you look at it carefully, the first thing you notice is that by page 8 there are 15 disclaimers about what the report can and cannot do, and they are critical. It is some of those that Professor Max Neutze, who also had a limited time, has responded to, and I am going to go through some of them. I will take three from the executive summary. In some ways they might be repeated later on. On page 1 of the executive summary the report states:
These include, necessarily, those costs and benefits which accrue privately and which accrue to third parties.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .