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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 11 Hansard (25 September) . . Page.. 3403 ..

MS McRAE (4.29): Mr Moore's motion, I hope the Attorney-General has noted, has the same problem as the Attorney-General had with my amendment, in that it refers to new uses. This is not a new use of the lake, as I pointed out, and, under the terms of Mr Moore's motion, this futsal development need not have come to the Assembly. It is a recreational use that is allowed under the National Capital Authority's plan for the lake and therefore falls outside the ambit of Mr Moore's motion.

I feel that it is incumbent on Mr Moore to come clean about what he means by new uses. Does it mean pogo stick races around the lake? Does it mean trolley races? Does it mean backwards races? You could have all sorts of things that are new in terms of not actually having happened on the lake before - hopping races, frog races. You can name any number of new and innovative things that may happen.

Mr Humphries: Where do you get these good ideas from?

MS McRAE: Lucy thinks she has the absolute in good ideas. I tell you, I have plenty.

Mr Humphries: Forget the solar cars; frog races are it.

MS McRAE: Little green frogs; yes, that would be just fine. Without wishing to make too light of the issue, what Mr Moore clearly had in mind this morning was quite different from what I and other people in the Assembly have in mind. He had two specific problems: He had the futsal multipurpose sports stadium, or outdoor recreation area, as it is now called, in an area of designated Capital Territory controlled land, which was entirely consistent with the requirements of that plan; and he had a problem with the rally. If they are the two problems, they should be spelt out, and the problems about what the new uses are should be spelt out.

It is not to be confused with the broader issue we have all got ourselves involved in today about the process of consultation. That is why I was so keen to get back to the issue of consultation in regard to public works, which Mr Moore himself has championed in the past. No matter what happens with this motion, and it looks as if it will go through, we should take great caution about the words "new use". The Government in particular should note that, if it allows this motion to go through, it is opening itself up to yet another round of very well deserved criticism over any activity that happens on the lake that has never happened before and is therefore, on my definition, a new use. If I take my mother for a walk around the lake, which will be a completely new use of the lake, does that mean that we have to come to the Assembly for approval? While sounding very flippant, this is at the heart of what went wrong with this motion this morning, and I still think it carries a seed of great difficulty.

Ms Horodny: That is why I tried to amend it.

MS McRAE: "Ecologically sustainable", Ms Horodny, to me has no better definition than "new". It is like saying, "I like fresh air, I like clean water, I like grass, I like fluffy animals, I like trees". They are all ecologically sustainable, but that has nothing to do with how we use the lakes. I am sorry, but for me your amendment does not clarify that particular word.

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