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

None . . Page.. 666 ..

I do not need to speak much further in relation to that matter because the issue has been fairly well ventilated in the chamber. There was some comment about the extent of an earlier proposal I had circulated. My intentions were to send a very blunt message to the Government that the non-Liberal members of the Assembly were deeply concerned about the future of the management of Namadgi National Park. I cannot think of a reason to change the management arrangements, but that is not to say that there is not a proposal that could be considered.

Mr Humphries raised the issue of what might happen under the Mabo legislation and how that might affect Namadgi. If that were the case and that was the sort of proposal that came back to this Assembly, I do not think there would be any doubt about what would happen to it. Certainly, from the Labor Party's point of view, we would approve of it. Indeed, we may not even get the right of veto, and perhaps we should not have it.

From a position of establishing an Assembly view about this matter, this motion achieves the ends that were originally aimed for. If the Government thinks it has some sort of formula that it can argue, given the blunt instrument that has already been circulated in the Assembly, then they ought to feel free to give it a try; there is no doubt about that. Listening to the debate in this place, it would want to be a pretty good argument. It is fair to say that the opportunity to argue a case should not be ruled out. I should say that my motion did not rule that out. You can never say “never”.

I am sure that, even against the background of that motion, if Mr Humphries at some point in the future came up with some bright proposal, he would bring it back here and reasonable people in this place, if they were able to see it from the same vantage point, would agree to it. Search as I may, I cannot think of one, and I do not see anybody else around here who can think of one either; but good luck. I urge members to endorse the motion, which has been hastily redrafted and circulated.

MR MOORE (4.55): This motion in its revised form reflects a certain amount of the debate Mr Humphries and I had through interjections during my speech on the matter of public importance. It reflects much more clearly my own view on it. I welcome the receptiveness of Mr Berry in ensuring that the intention of his original motion is carried through clearly and that we do not keep a closed mind to any possible option. I endorse the statement Mr Berry made, in that I would take a great deal of convincing about improving the management of Namadgi other than through our own Parks and Conservation Service officers. Nevertheless, I think it is appropriate that we always remain open-minded.

MR HUMPHRIES (Attorney-General and Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning) (4.56): Mr Speaker, I welcome the motion Mr Berry has moved and I am very pleased that the Assembly has indicated that it is prepared to give the Government this breathing space. Obviously, we have a major task to bring forward a convincing proposal to the Assembly. It may be that we do not get to that stage because the negotiations we would like to have with an organisation such as ANCA might not produce a position we can bring forward to the Assembly. Alternatively, we may bring forward such a proposal.

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