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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 1 Hansard (20 February) . . Page.. 184 ..

MS HORODNY (continuing):

(d) the development of a plan for a possible eastern ring-road from Gungahlin and the Barton Highway to Central Canberra and the Monaro Highway via an upgraded Majura Road, to complement the public transport system;

(2) this inquiry should take into account the results of the current Maunsell study, the Government's response to it, other transport inquiries held in the ACT, and the impact of any proposed new roads from Gungahlin on other roads, adjacent residential areas and the Canberra Nature Park;".

I have moved my amendment to Ms McRae's motion because I believe that Ms McRae's motion does not reflect the intent of the motion that was agreed to yesterday. That was the motion that the Greens did not support but that the majority of members in this Assembly did support. I believe that there is a substantial difference between what was agreed to yesterday and what Ms McRae's motion seeks to do. I think the substantial difference is that, in yesterday's motion, the Assembly agreed that the Government should not make any decision on the route and timing of the proposed parkway until the Government has responded to the P and E Committee and the P and E Committee has reported to the Assembly. There were four points made in respect of that reporting. This motion from Ms McRae that is before us today, it seems to me, is revisiting the whole study that the Maunsell workshop is looking at. I cannot understand why we should be doing that, when we are paying $300,000 for a consultant to do that work.

So, I am a little bit perplexed by this motion. I believe that it is not appropriate, because it is not what this Assembly agreed to yesterday. Without wishing to reflect on the vote yesterday, I believe that the amendment I am putting up actually reflects the agreement that was made yesterday, which was that no decision should be made. So, I have included the paragraphs that this Assembly agreed to yesterday and I would ask the Assembly to support this amendment, because it represents more completely what this Assembly made a decision about yesterday.

MR MOORE (10.41): Mr Speaker, I rise to speak to both the motion and the amendment. One of the interesting results of the Assembly's passing the motion yesterday is that I may well be going back to the Minister or the Chief Minister to seek some further assistance, as they provided when we considered the State of the Environment Report. An officer was seconded to the committee. That proved to be successful, I think, personally for the future of the officer, Jim Corrigan, who made an excellent committee secretary, and also for the department and the committee system. I think that working more closely with the bureaucracy goes a very small way to enhancing the concept that the Chief Minister talks about - of council-style government. I indicate now that, at the right time, I will be seeking that assistance.

I would also like to speak to the amendment moved by Ms Horodny. A motion was passed by the Assembly yesterday. No member of the Assembly can ignore that motion. We have to be cognisant of the terms of that motion in making our decisions.

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