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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 1 Hansard (20 February) . . Page.. 185 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

That applies to the Minister - and we are very thorough in ensuring that Ministers do that, of course - but exactly the same thing applies to a committee, and particularly to a committee chair who has that responsibility for taking into account what that motion says. There has been some suggestion that, because Ms McRae's motion is worded that "the Planning and Environment Committee undertake a wide-ranging inquiry into the future route of the John Dedman Parkway", that eliminates any possibility of there being no route. I do not think that that is implied at all. I think that one of the answers could well be - and I know that there are representations to this effect - that there be no John Dedman Parkway. This motion does not eliminate that possibility.

So, I think that the Planning and Environment Committee can look at this whole issue with an open mind and we can look at the original motion moved by Ms McRae in the broadest possible way. I think that the more flexibility the committee has to look at these things in the broadest possible way, the better will be the opportunity for the whole range of people within the community to put in their twopenny bit's worth to suggest what the committee should do, how we should handle it or what we should ignore. The more we narrow this sort of inquiry, the more we eliminate the possibilities, with the result that we do not have that general flexibility.

Mr Speaker, I am quite enthusiastic about supporting the original motion; but I would say to Ms Horodny that we cannot ignore the motion of yesterday. I think that what she has raised is that the motion of yesterday has an important role to play. That will be taken into account; but let us ensure that we have the broadest possible terms of reference so that we have the flexibility to meet the community needs and so that we can consult as flexibly as possible. One of the criticisms that Ms Horodny has raised on quite a number of occasions - and quite rightly so - is that consultation with the community has been too narrow, that it has been too specific, and that it effectively cuts people out of the consultation process. I think that would be the fear that I would have in narrowing any of this. I think the broader terms of reference are a far better way to go.

MS McRAE (10.45): Mr Speaker, I rise in absolute bewilderment - - -

Mr Moore: To speak on the amendment or to close the debate?

MS McRAE: To speak on the amendment, not to close the debate.

There seems to be such a high level of suspicion and distrust here that I am astounded. There is no way on earth that, by moving this formal motion today to actually take on the inquiry that we were directed to take on by the Assembly yesterday, our committee could ignore the issues that were raised yesterday. There is absolutely no precedent - in my memory, anyway - for the Assembly actually debating the terms of reference of a committee. The committee usually sits down, does its terms of reference and then presents them to the Assembly. We were going to have that opportunity at the next meeting of our committee, of which Ms Horodny is a member. I find absolutely no reason to have this amendment put in front of us today. To me, it just smacks of suspicion and distrust of the Assembly processes. It has no date on the front of it. When I found it on my desk, I thought it was yesterday's. There was no discussion and no input. It shows no understanding of Assembly processes, and it is an insult to our collective voting yesterday.

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