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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 1 Hansard (19 February) . . Page.. 145 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

I am not happy with either of the amendments proposed by Ms McRae or Mr Humphries. I am disappointed that they have been put, because I think our motion is entirely sensible and it is sorely needed. Finally, we would see responsibility taken by government in this place to actually look at what is happening with transport and come up with a strategy that will meet the needs of the community in relation to the environment, and social needs now and into the future.

Mr Humphries: Ms McRae, do you want to make some more comments about what your amendments mean?

MS McRAE (4.41): Mr Humphries has invited me to speak. Mr Humphries, let me explain. I think that is only fair. I am with you.

MR SPEAKER: You need leave.

Leave granted.

MS McRAE: Thank you for granting me leave. Mr Humphries has foreshadowed an amendment which I believe has logic to it. Mr Humphries is very nervous that in the process of our inquiry, as I understand it, he may then be pinned down to absolutely and definitively developing and implementing, developing and actually doing, as the words state in the Greens' motion. By way of explanation, which Mr Humphries has invited me to do, I believe that this is what this process will enable Mr Humphries and the Government to do. If we instigated an inquiry we would be inviting the Government to make a submission on each of these areas, presenting the same case as would come out from the amendment that Mr Humphries is seeking. I, for one, believe that the Assembly is quite sensible. The motion refers to the Assembly being satisfied. My amendment refers to it being satisfied after the Assembly inquiry. By a process of inquiry, the Planning and Environment Committee will be able to evaluate the Government's efforts in each of those areas and bring them back by way of a report.

The amendment circulated by Mr Humphries does not preclude these same requirements still being put on the Government. The Greens have foreshadowed here some of the things that they and the community are concerned about. I am not terribly excited about amending the wording, although I have a great deal of sympathy for what Mr Humphries is saying. He does not want in any way to have these words in this motion pinning him down definitively to a developed and implemented strategy. What I do not think we are going to save by worrying about Mr Humphries's proposal is for those requirements to be talked about, debated and explained. I think that what I am doing in our amendments to the motion is creating a situation where the Government will be able to give a submission and information and background to these four particular points. Then, when the PEC responds and reports to the Assembly, this debate will come back on again and things will be able to be evaluated. That is why, although I understand Mr Humphries's concerns and why the shift in wording makes it more open, in my opinion it does not change the intent of the Assembly finding out where the development and implementation of these plans is at. I, for one, will be satisfied so long as a well-articulated and detailed submission is put to the committee about each of these issues so that we at least are privy to where the Government is at and what the processes are.

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