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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 1 Hansard (20 February) . . Page.. 186 ..

MS McRAE (continuing):

It was absolutely clear yesterday that people agreed that these key issues were to be part of our inquiry. It is now up to the committee to ensure that the terms of reference that we draw up in no way exclude them. The intent of the inquiry is to be as wide ranging as possible. These are not the only issues that are of concern to people. In fact, the things that I hear on my telephone and that I see in my letters and in my in-tray are much wider than this. I think that this amendment is unnecessary. I think it shows a level of distrust which is unnecessary. I think we should thank Ms Horodny for preparing it, and go back to the committee and discuss it and ensure that when we publicise our inquiry we in no way cut off any of this potential inquiry and we in no way cut off any intention.

I accept that the words "future route of the John Dedman Parkway" suggest to some that I am not including the no road option in the inquiry. That was never the intent. As I said yesterday in debate, that is one of the consistent issues that come up. We will in no way prevent people, who want to, from coming to the committee and saying, "We do not want to talk about the future option; we want to talk about a future no road option". I have no problem with that, and I cannot see how my motion today will prevent that from happening. But I am very sad that it has to be put before us like this, with the obvious implication that somehow our own committee - of which Lucy is a member, Mr Moore is a member, Mrs Littlewood is now a member, and I am a member - will ignore the direct and express direction of the Assembly yesterday and proceed to do an inquiry that will not take this into account. I am sorry, Ms Horodny; that was never on the table, and I think it is a great pity that you have brought this amendment forward at all.

MR HUMPHRIES (Attorney-General and Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning) (10.48): Mr Speaker, in the interests of getting on to other business, I simply indicate that I agree with the comments of Ms McRae and Mr Moore.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

MR OSBORNE (10.49): Mr Speaker, I seek leave to amend my notice of motion.

Leave granted.

MR SPEAKER: You might just explain what the amendment is, Mr Osborne.

MR OSBORNE: Mr Speaker, I would like to add to the terms of reference on the immunisation issue "the legal implications and implications for civil liberties". It is mainly to tie it into the legal affairs area so that we have no trouble in looking at the issue. Mr Speaker, I move:

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