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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 1 Hansard (19 February) . . Page.. 146 ..

MS McRAE (continuing):

That is my understanding of it and that is why we are happy to run with our amendments. We believe that in the process of inquiry we will be able to canvass each of these issues, look at where the Government is at and present some sort of report back. It will, in essence, enhance the debate that is to come. It does not in any way prevent these issues from coming back up for debate anyway, even if we do put up an amendment; so it seems to me it is better to go with the flow. These are the issues that concern people. The inquiry will provide an avenue for the response, the debate, the information, the analysis and whatever else is being done on each of these to be aired. The Planning and Environment Committee can then assess what is in front of it. It will be able to come back to the Assembly and say, "No, the Government has not developed and implemented a strategy to reduce the number of vehicles travelling between Gungahlin and Civic, but it has in place this process", and the PEC committee can report on that.

I think, in essence, we will end up doing exactly what Mr Humphries wants in his foreshadowed amendment; so I think it is just easier to stay with ours. The intent of the Assembly is clear - that each of these issues is of concern. The process of inquiry will yield the information that we need and will therefore better inform the debate when we come back to it, hopefully in September.

MR HUMPHRIES (Attorney-General and Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning) (4.45): I seek leave to speak again, Mr Speaker.

Leave granted.

MR HUMPHRIES: I will be brief, Mr Speaker. I am certainly reassured by the interpretation that Ms McRae has put on the words that she is amending in this motion. When we return to this place in about September this year and we have not achieved the outcomes that are foreshadowed in those four paragraphs but have reported on progress on those four matters, I will rely on what Ms McRae has said in this place to justify the Government's position and I hope that I will not be criticised, at least from that side of the chamber, for having done that.

I should put on record my discussions with Ms Horodny. Ms Horodny does say to me that she expects, if the motion is carried in this form, as amended by Ms McRae, that we would complete the work on all of those four matters. Although I think Ms Horodny's interpretation of the words is correct on their reading, I choose to adopt Ms McRae's interpretation of what they actually mean; so on that basis the Government can live with the amendments as put forward.

MS HORODNY (4.47): Mr Speaker, I rise to address Ms McRae's amendments. I think there are some problems here that are not being addressed. I think we are just playing around with words. I think people in this Assembly are avoiding a difficult decision here. I have been hearing from residents and from groups in the community who are saying over and over to me that the process that is happening at the moment with the Maunsell workshop is fundamentally flawed. Here we are playing around with words, wondering whether strategies can be implemented by the time the Planning and Environment Committee can get together and look at all these issues once again.

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