Page 2812 - Week 10 - Tuesday, 13 September 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
immediately giving it a specific usage. I think there is something interesting about colour coding. Because they were coloured pink and they jumped out at you, it grabbed the attention of a few people and the debate was hijacked. We did not have the full measure of debate that we might have had. I said so at the time. I said so to Matthew Abraham, who, above all others, was the leader in hijacking that debate.
The main issues in that Territory Plan are the ones that we are discussing now. They always have been the main issues. I agreed to a process. Because, right from the beginning, the whole plan has been one in which all members of the Assembly have been involved, I believed that it was appropriate for that process to continue. I examined the options for proceeding down that path. I could have taken unilateral action. I could have discussed the matter with my planners and said, "These are the concerns. Do we need to resolve them; if so, how?". That was an attractive option, because it was more immediate. I thought that an appropriate way to go was to refer it to the PDI Committee. However, they have a heavy agenda. They are looking at the legislation at the moment. They did not believe that it was appropriate for them to do it. So, rather than take unilateral action, I set up the inquiry. I think that that process was agreed with other members of the Assembly, because I spoke to them about it. Indeed, the terms of reference of the inquiry are Ms Szuty's. So I have not endeavoured to take control of this inquiry. I have not endeavoured strictly to impose my ideas upon it. It is a genuine and open inquiry. I want the consultation that has been a feature of our planning to continue. That is the reason for having this inquiry and for the way we have done it.
Mr Moore made the point that the Territory Plan has gone through this Assembly with everybody putting up their hands. I noted Mr Moore's comment about the very first day he saw the draft plan and the strategic approach that he believed it should have. It has gone through every stage. There have been lots of disputes at various times and lots of arguments; but, in the end, every hand has gone up. We have not raised today another significant factor, which is the unit titles legislation that went through. As we said when we were in the chamber down the road, it will be an encouragement for dual occupancy. We acknowledged it. We said it, and every hand went up in agreement. So, right through, there has been agreement on what has been happening. I take responsibility as Minister. I am not trying to pass the buck to anybody and everybody; but there has been agreement. On my part, there has been an acknowledgment that there is always going to be a debate in respect of the issues that are now confronting us.
The only criticism has been about the process of setting up the secretariat and finding the inquirer. I said at the outset that I would try to find an agreed person. In the end, I do not think we got a person upon whom everybody totally agreed. I have to say to Mr Moore that I am not comfortable talking about who were the people we examined and considered and why someone was picked and not somebody else. I do want to indicate that we looked at a long list. Every person on that list was a person of the utmost integrity, with outstanding service to this community or to some other community. I believe that any one of them would have done an excellent job. They certainly would have done it to the best of their ability. I do not lack confidence in any person whose name was considered, and I want to emphasise that to Mr Moore.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .