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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 5 (Hansard) 16 May) . . Page.. 1391 ..

MR WHITECROSS (continuing):

While it appears on the surface that a great deal might be achieved by going down the road that the Greens have proposed, it is a very blunt instrument. Legislation usually does turn out to be a very blunt instrument for solving a very complex problem. I think more could be done, and I think the capacity to do more is in the hands of the Government. I do not think that we make this difficult problem any easier by adopting the blunt instrument of banning which the Greens have canvassed, but we can debate that more when that motion comes up, Mr Speaker.

MR DE DOMENICO (Minister for Urban Services) (4.40), in reply: Mr Speaker, I thank Mr Whitecross and Ms Horodny for their contributions to this debate. I also compliment Mr Whitecross on his attempt to present a more balanced view of the topic. I would be pleased, by the way, to talk to Mr Whitecross and others in the Assembly who are interested in getting together to finally come up with a solution to a problem that, as Mr Whitecross correctly suggests, has been out there for 20 years.

I need to address some of the comments made, Mr Speaker. A particular comment that Ms Horodny continues to make out there in the public arena is that the Government did not take on board the recommendations of the working party. I say once again, Mr Speaker, that that is not true. Ms Horodny would know that there were six members of that working party, including Mr Meyer from the Planning Authority; Mr Gordon Davidson from Urban Services; Mr Bob Sutherland from the Weston Creek Community Council, representing the community; representatives of the Transport Workers Union; representatives of the trucking industry; and Mr Miller from RORE.

My recollection, the notes I have seen and the minutes of the meetings I have seen suggest to me that there was broadband agreement on all but two issues, and the only person out of the six who disagreed on those two issues was Mr Miller. How, then, could Ms Horodny suggest that after 12 months of community consultation, just because one person happens to disagree with a minute area, the Government does not take on board the recommendations of the working party? The Government does take on, will attempt to take on, the recommendations as agreed unanimously by the majority - that is five out of the six people.

My understanding is that Mr Miller initially agreed also but, on returning to the next meeting, after speaking to one or two, or perhaps three or four, members of RORE, was persuaded to change his mind, and after a couple of months, or two or three more months of consultation, the committee once again agreed. In particular, one of the two points of disagreement was that Mr Miller believed that existing operators should be restricted to between 6 o'clock and 10 o'clock. The other members of the working party suggested 5 o'clock in the morning. The Government suggested, and the committee agreed, in a majority, that it should be 5.30 am. I cannot see any better compromise between 5 o'clock and 6 o'clock than getting to the 5.30 situation. Mr Miller, as I said, initially agreed to that, but then came back and changed his mind. Those are the realities of life, for Ms Horodny's edification.

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