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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 2 Hansard (27 February) . . Page.. 609 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

I supported Labor's amendment because I felt that it was useful to do so; otherwise, this motion would not get up at all. But I would like to make the comment, Ms McRae, that, in the long debate that has occurred over this issue, on 9 May 1995 Rosemary Follett actually asked a question of the Chief Minister relating to the Acton-Kingston land swap. She said:

Mrs Carnell, last Thursday your Attorney-General, Mr Humphries, told this Assembly:

We have entered into that contract and we are bound to the consequences of that contract.

So, there was language being used at that time that was implying that this agreement was actually a contract. Ms Follett asked for full details of that contract to be tabled. I am just pointing out the inconsistency - that Labor has on occasions wanted to see contracts, even though they be legal documents. The other point that it is important to make is off this subject, really; but the fact that the buildings have been gutted is not a reason why they could not be used again. It is often what actually happens anyway.

I am disappointed that Mr Moore and Mr Osborne have not supported this motion, because I have heard particularly Mr Moore on many occasions in this place say that this is a minority government and that we do have the right to have time to look at arrangements that are made, and in fact to be consulted before they are made, on behalf of the Territory by the Chief Minister. All I have been really asking for here is that we have that right, instead of receiving that document, as we did, yesterday, and then not having an opportunity to discuss it in this Assembly again until April. That is not good process, and that is why I moved my motion.

I am still happy to push for this motion, with the request that we wait at least until we see how much money this Federal Government is going to put in. We could find out in the May budget that there is not $125m but $10m, and we could end up with some sheds on Acton again. What kind of museum are we going to end up with? Let us wait and see exactly what the Federal Government is going to do. As other speakers have pointed out, there is great inconsistency in one minute hearing from a member of the Liberal Party saying, "Mr Howard is absolutely committed. Have faith. We believe him", and then hearing, "Do not delay the process for two months, because the whole thing might collapse". Who is he? He is the Prime Minister. If we are so definitely sure that he is so committed, why are we so frightened of waiting two months, which is still within the agreement? There is no problem with demolishing those buildings by that date, if that is seen to be appropriate.

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