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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 11 Hansard (25 September) . . Page.. 3396 ..

MS McRAE (continuing):

the expenditure of public works money in a way that we have come to accept. The public works program was distributed to the Assembly last year. The public works program was quite open. Mr Mark Owens submitted to the Estimates Committee a facilities management project, going from 1995 to the year 2005. The full list of potential developments was there. Hey presto, in neither document was futsal, this multipurpose thing, mentioned, and that is where the essence of the problem is. We have no problem with decisions being made; we have no problem with public works money being spent. It is probably a good idea. We have no problem with the sporting community now being happy. The real issue is that consultation means offering open, accurate and honest information about the way money is going to be spent and allowing members of the public to be included in those decisions.

MS HORODNY (4.00): Mr Speaker, there has been difficulty this morning and now in finding the appropriate words for this motion to satisfy the requirements of different members. Mr Moore's original motion relates very specifically to the two proposals for Lake Burley Griffin. Ms McRae's frustration, and I can understand it fully, is in regard to the broader issue of how this Government is consulting with the community and the Assembly. As Ms McRae says, there was no mention of futsal, for example, in any of our capital works papers. I went back and looked through the papers this morning just to reassure myself, and I even rang the committee secretary to make sure that I had not forgotten it or somehow misplaced the idea. But no, there is absolutely no mention of futsal anywhere. It is a real problem.

There are many issues we are trying to grapple with. One is that the rally and futsal proposals need to come to the Assembly. Mr Moore has moved that those proposals should come to the Assembly and that the Assembly should grant permission for those particular proposals and any other proposals of that kind to go ahead. Ms McRae is discussing the issue of consultation and also capital works. The problem with Ms McRae's amendment is that she uses the words "undertake appropriate consultation". I am not quite sure what Ms McRae's view of "appropriate" is. Does she mean that the community is consulted? Does she mean that it should go to a committee? What exactly does she mean by "appropriate consultation"? Also, in her amendment she refers to a "multipurpose sports stadium or in other words new Public Works". Again, not all the activities that might be proposed for the lakes or the foreshores are necessarily public works. The rally, for instance, would be a case in point. I am reluctant to support Ms McRae's amendment, and I will be moving my own amendment later.

MR HUMPHRIES (Attorney-General and Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning) (4.03): Mr Speaker, briefly, I have a concern about the amendment, more because of its lack of clarity than anything else.

Ms McRae: You should have listened to my speech.

MR HUMPHRIES: I did listen to your speech, Ms McRae. Ms McRae says that the Government should be required to "undertake appropriate consultation in regard to any new use (ie" - I think she means eg - "multipurpose sports stadium or in other words new Public Works)". There is a distinction between public works and uses. There could be a new use for the shores of the lake which does not involve any public works at all.

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