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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 3 Hansard (27 March) . . Page.. 729 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

I personally could foresee some potential problems with those craft on the lakes. I personally had some doubts about whether there would be a level of noise generated by those craft on the southern arm of Lake Tuggeranong which might have caused a loss of amenity to local residents. I think that in the case of the southern arm of Lake Tuggeranong the residents nearest to that area would have been residents on the other side of a major road, Drakeford Drive, which passes through the centre of Tuggeranong. I am not sure that there would have been a lot of noise impact on those residents greater than the noise of the road, but again I am speculating. I do not know; nor, with respect, does Ms Horodny, Mr Wood or anybody else who has taken part in this debate so far.

Mr Wood: I know. I know all right.

MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Wood does know, apparently. He has a crystal ball. Mr Speaker, it seems to me that we ought to consider the way in which we want to conduct such debates in future in the Territory. The proposition put to me very forcefully by Ms Horodny, and some other people as well, I might say, was that as Minister I should never have allowed this issue to get out of the bag. I should have contained this issue by saying, "No, no consideration will be given to the use of any motorised craft in the ACT".

Mr Wood: Absolutely. That is what you should have done.

MR HUMPHRIES: I should have said that proposals of that kind are out of the question, and that is the proposition, obviously, that Mr Wood puts to me. Mr Speaker, unlike Mr Wood, I believe that this is an issue which could have been, and ought to have been, put before the ACT population. It is one which they are quite mature enough to have had a full debate about. Indeed, I am supported in that by the view of the Canberra Times, which also suggested that it was time to have that kind of debate. The casualty in this process, the casualty in the decision that I made under pressure from members of this place and from members of the community about the jet skis, is the process to consider those sorts of issues again in the future in this kind of context.

I am really left in the position of having to say that my judgment is superior, or the Chief Planner's as well, to some extent. Effectively, the Government's judgment is the final arbiter, should it decide not to proceed with certain issues, of whether or not proposals like this are worth considering. I do not think, with respect, that Ms Horodny, and possibly Mr Wood, quite appreciate the damage that they do to a process of openness in government by saying that Ministers - - -

Ms Horodny: What about the damage to the lake, Gary? We are talking about enhancing the waterways. Enhancing is the issue here.

MR HUMPHRIES: The question, Ms Horodny, is not what damage would be done by the permanent use of those things on the lake. You know and I know, and Mr Wood knows, that in the climate in which this has gone to this stage the chance of it ever becoming a permanent feature of our lakes is probably pretty remote. The question is:

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