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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 2 Hansard (27 February) . . Page.. 607 ..

Mr Berry: No, Mr Speaker; I insist on a point of order. Mrs Carnell is debating the issue.

Mrs Carnell: The Prime Minister, in his election campaign, said that his preferred site was Yarramundi and that he would put $1.5m aside to look at which site was best.

MR SPEAKER: Thank you. Now, Mr Berry.

Mr Berry: Mr Speaker, Mrs Carnell was clearly debating the issue. There is no point of order.

MR SPEAKER: You said it yourself then. Continue, Ms Horodny.

MS HORODNY: Mr Howard was not able to deliver on that site for the National Museum. In fact, he spent, as you say, $1.5m to have an assessment done to prove the case that he wanted to present.

Mr Speaker, Mrs Carnell said earlier that the P and E Committee had a briefing on Monday, informing us about the details of the swap and all the negotiations. But, in fact, at that briefing, we were given an update on the ongoing negotiations. We were clearly told that they were ongoing. We were told about some of the issues that were still being debated - for instance, whether the Acton site would be cleared to ground level, 300 millimetres below the ground, 500 millimetres below the ground or whatever. There were a number of things that still had to be negotiated. It was by no means a briefing on the final outcome of those negotiations. So, what you said earlier was not correct at all.

Mrs Carnell: That is actually wrong. What I said very definitely was that the briefing that was given was that this was the negotiating position. If it stalled, then it would be handled politically. That is exactly what you were told.

MS HORODNY: We were not told about its being handled politically, but - - -

Mr Osborne: Are we having a conversation in here, Mr Speaker?

MR SPEAKER: Apparently so. We may yet be looking at when we should break for dinner, too.

MS HORODNY: Mr Speaker, it is a shame that our motion has been amended by Ms McRae. I take the point that Ms McRae was making - that it is a legal document and she has no qualifications to make those legal judgments. But part of that contract would certainly be about what commitment the Federal Government will make to cleaning up which parts of Kingston. It is still very unclear as to the level of contamination on that site and which government will clear how much of that contamination. Again, the discussion on Monday did not go into any final details about that. There were no final details; just a lot of things still up in the air. So, it is a shame that the motion is being amended.

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