Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 11 Hansard (25 September) . . Page.. 3349 ..
MS McRAE (continuing):
I listened very carefully to Mr Moore during his speech. His speech related to the development on the lake foreshore, which was a public works development, and his speech related to consultation most of all. My proposed amendment is specifically about consultation and public works developments. As I said in my introduction to it - before I was ruled out of order - it is there specifically because the inference of Mr Moore's motion is that only the use of the lakes is of concern, not the rest of the ACT, and I think that is wrong. The Assembly could have had the opportunity, had this amendment been put, to judge whether or not it was a separate issue. The lakes are part of the ACT. They do not exist separate to the ACT. My motion talking about the ACT is inclusive of the lakes, not exclusive of the lakes. It is a furphy - and I think this is where you have been drawn in, Mr Speaker - to talk about my motion being irrelevant, because Mr Moore's motion refers to the lakes and my motion refers to the ACT. As I have said, it may be a surprise to Mr Moore, but the lakes are actually part of the ACT. The futsal development - again, it may be a surprise to Mr Moore - was a public works development, as are other public works developments in the ACT. So, on both cases of relevance, my case is that both items relate specifically to what Mr Moore was talking about.
If Mr Moore is concerned about his issues being hijacked, Mr Speaker, then it is not you who has to worry about whether or not Mr Moore is being hijacked; that is not a standing order. There is no standing order that says, "The Speaker shall protect a member from being hijacked by another member. The Speaker shall protect a member from getting different press from another member". Show me that standing order. That is Mr Moore's speciality, and it has come up today. Mr Moore is appealing to you, rather than to his fellow Assembly members, so that his case can be put and won against mine, which could have been put and lost; rather, he is trying to prevent me from expanding on and deepening his motion to bring it back to the point of relevance which he was talking about, which was a public works development on the lake in the ACT. I am talking about public works developments - plural - in the ACT which are inclusive of the development on the lake foreshore. I think Mr Moore has drawn you in, in a way that you will regret, because if you are about to rule things in and out on the ground of relevance, Mr Speaker, I can assure you that your ruling will be appealed, time and time again, and you will end up gagging legitimate debate in this Assembly. I urge members to dissent from your ruling.
MR KAINE (11.47): Mr Speaker, I believe that what I just heard from the Opposition is totally irrelevant to your ruling. To me, it is a fairly straightforward matter and it is simply the fact that the amendment foreshadowed by Ms McRae contains a totally different matter from the subject of Mr Moore's motion. Mr Moore's motion twice uses the word "use". It talks about "any proposed use of" and, further down, "prior to granting any permission for a new use of these areas". That implies activity. It does not necessarily have anything to do with public works or anything else. It merely relates to activity that may take place around the three lakes in the Territory. I believe that your ruling that the amendment is out of order is the correct one, because the proposed amendment relates to a totally different subject. It does not have anything to do with "use". It would change the intent of the motion to talk about public works and would exclude the intent of Mr Moore's motion, and that is activity. I think that your ruling is the correct one, and I do not support the motion of dissent from it.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .