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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 12 Hansard (21 November) . . Page.. 3989 ..

MR MOORE (4.01), in reply: In closing the debate, Mr Speaker, I think it is appropriate to draw members' attention to the resolution of appointment of the Standing Committee on Planning and Environment:

[that] a Standing Committee on Planning and Environment [be established] to examine matters related to planning, land management, transport, commercial development, industrial and residential development, infrastructure and capital works, science and technology, the environment, conservation, heritage, energy and resources ...

[And that the committee] inquire into and report on matters referred to [it] by the Assembly or matters that are considered by the committee to be of concern to the community.

Under those terms of reference, in my opinion, and this is in some ways contrary to what Ms McRae was saying, had there been a majority of members who wished to do this, it was within the committee's prerogative to say, "Yes, we will investigate this matter". That was a possibility for us. The issue was raised with the committee by Ms Horodny and we said, "We are not quite sure about this. What we would like to do, first of all, is have a briefing". I think the way things happened is very important on this issue, and Ms McRae is quite right to say that we should avoid this sort of mistake in the future. I would like to identify what the mistake was, for the benefit of other committee chairs and committee members.

We said, "Before we undertake an inquiry into this, we should know what the view of the department is, and to that end we will have a briefing and that briefing will be held openly", as Ms McRae said. That was agreed to by all members of the committee, and the date set down to do that was the following Friday. On the Monday or Tuesday, Ms Horodny came to me and said, "We are having these people appearing before the committee. We know that certain members of the public wish to attend. Do you mind if they also address the committee?". I said, "I am not really inclined to do that. However, if the other members of the committee agree, then I do not mind if we are more informed by getting those views". This is still just to decide whether or not we are going to have an inquiry, and this is what Ms McRae says we ought not to have done. I have checked back through the standing orders, and I believe that it was within the rules, that we can inform ourselves before we take on an inquiry, that we can examine witnesses, if we wish, and I believe that that is the case. I am happy to be corrected, and I would be happy if the Speaker or the Clerk wishes to take this issue on and draw my attention to any problems with the process that was used.

I said to Ms Horodny, "You will have to have the agreement of other members". I ran into Mr Kaine prior to Ms Horodny seeing him, and I said, "Ms Horodny says that they are going to be there anyway. Do you mind if they appear?". Mr Kaine's response to me was to the effect, "You cannot have the residents appear without having the pastor present his view as well". I said, "Yes, I agree with that", and when I saw Ms Horodny next I said, "Mr Kaine agrees, under those circumstances", and that she would have to talk to Ms McRae. I saw Ms McRae at some time and had a discussion to that effect. As far as I was concerned, it was agreed.

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