Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

None . . Page.. 656 ..

MR HUMPHRIES: I think it is appropriate for us to acknowledge that that is a possibility and that we will have in that arrangement, I hope, a way of the Ngunnawal people keeping Namadgi National Park open and accessible to the public of the ACT in almost the same way as it is now. But that could entail some changes. Mr Berry's knee-jerk motion proposing no change, putting up the shutters and not considering any options other than the present arrangements is not conducive to an environment in which we can look at the sorts of eventualities we have to look at. We may not have any choice. It may be that the Native Title Tribunal, which makes decisions in this area, determines that the national park will be owned by somebody else. If they do, we may not any longer have an option of saying that these decisions about management of the park rest with the ACT Government; but I hope that we will.

Mr Speaker, I think I have said enough to indicate that it is important for us to be prepared to consider at all stages the way in which we should best manage these important assets which at the present time are owned by the ACT. The park is an asset which we see being available to the people of the ACT, and we should be doing our best to think of its best possible future use. The best way we can guarantee the efficient provision of that use is by making the best possible arrangements for its management. That may not necessarily be by having ACT public servants doing the actual things in the park which they do at the moment. It could conceivably be by having somebody else doing that. At the moment the option that is presenting itself to us is for the Australian Nature Conservation Agency to do that for us. I would ask members to ask themselves whether that really is such a bad option at any stage. I am not saying that this is going to happen. They have only just approached us because of the kite flying which Mr Berry has criticised. They would not have approached us otherwise.

Mr Connolly: Because they do not trust you. They think the ACT is going to do something underhand.

MR HUMPHRIES: No, that is not the case. That is a silly thing to say, Mr Connolly, with great respect. It is not because they do not trust us. Mr Speaker, they are interested in providing a quality service, and they are quite happy to do that in conjunction with the ACT Government. I think Mr Connolly knows that. The fact of life is that we could get a good quality service from this, and we should think about that.

The Labor Party would be well advised to heed the lesson that this experience has given us and drop their mindless ideological and long outdated pursuit of having every public function undertaken by a public employee. The Government accepts responsibility for the control of the management of the park and undertakes to keep it in public ownership, with that one qualification. No option for its future use and administration which does not meet these requirements will be acceptable either to me or to the people of the ACT.

Mr Speaker, I say to the members here that it is within their power to shut off these options if they want that to happen. You can rule off anything you want; but, with great respect, that is a foolish way of proceeding. It is much better to see what it is that we are talking about before you decide on what you think of it. We have only just been

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .