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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 8 Hansard (28 August) . . Page.. 2594 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

I simply draw to the attention of the Assembly something which may be forgotten by members at this point in time. The period during which the consultation that was criticised by the committee was taking place was a period when government agencies were considerably disrupted by industrial action surrounding a dispute with, as I recall it, the CPSU. There is no doubt that elements of that consultation were inadequate; but that is not a matter for which I feel greatly inclined to apologise, because of the many problems that the overall operations of government faced at that time.

The important point is that the proposals put forward by the Government did withstand the criticisms of some people, that the processes that were criticised in this place did lead to a decision which was sustained by the committee and that the importance of proceeding with Nudurr Drive has been underscored since then. I have not been out there recently, but I believe Nudurr Drive is well under way. I am glad that we are able to consider this report of the standing committee before the drive is actually completed.

MR MOORE (11.37), in reply: In closing the debate, Mr Speaker, I think it is very important to note that, even though the committee did support the Government's move, people were able to go through the process of saying that there were problems. We did identify problems, and I am pleased that the Government has responded positively to dealing with those in the future. Mr Humphries said that there was industrial strife at the time. A specific problem that a committee looks at may well be resolved in the way the Government originally intended, but there is often some other general issue that needs to be dealt with. That is what a committee tries to look for. I am very pleased to have been able to deal with this issue in a positive way.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Debate resumed from 21 November 1996, on motion by Mr Humphries:

That the Assembly takes note of the paper.

MR MOORE (11.38): The whole process, together with the amount of paper generated over the issue of contaminated sites, particularly the sites contaminated with arsenic, is very interesting. I had a briefing from one of Mr Humphries's officers just the other day on where we are up to. It is an interesting time to draw attention to the fact that the contaminated sites issue came up in the sort of period that we are entering now, leading up to an election. It came up prior to the last election, when Bill Wood was the Minister. I think it was a credit to all members of the Assembly that it was never turned into a beat-up election issue, which could well have happened. Often when I am in public I hear very cynical attitudes expressed about politicians. Indeed, Stuart Littlemore last night, in a speech to Amnesty International, expressed some very cynical attitudes on what is likely to get through parliaments.

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