Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 1 Hansard (16 February) . . Page.. 148 ..
MS CARNELL (continuing):
Mr Speaker, I have circulated an amendment to Mr Stanhope's motion. The reason for that is that I see absolutely no benefit in wasting ACT taxpayers' time with us taking up time in this Assembly having a go at the Prime Minister. What is that going to achieve? Absolutely nothing. It may be a bit of grandstanding for Mr Stanhope, but we should be looking at outcomes for the people of Canberra. I move:
Add after "meeting" the following words:
"and calls on the Prime Minister and the Federal Government to demonstrate its commitment to Canberra by:
(a) supporting the upgrade of Canberra Airport to allow usage by a wider range of aircraft;
(b) supporting the development of a strategy to enhance Canberra's convention facilities in keeping with Canberra's status as the national capital; and
(c) supporting the submission to the Commonwealth Government on the decision to relocate CHOGM 2001 put forward by various Canberra and region business associations and the ACT Government.".
My amendment takes a very negative motion that does not achieve anything, except maybe a bit of grandstanding from Mr Stanhope, through to something that, hopefully, will achieve some very real benefits for Canberra. I do not disagree with Mr Stanhope that the decision by the Federal Government to relocate CHOGM has caused significant problems for the ACT. What we should be doing now, taking into account that the decision is made, is finding a constructive way forward. The submission that was put together by the ACT Government and the various business associations does just that. Mr Stanhope has alluded to it, and I am very pleased that he supports it.
Mr Stanhope was asked to, and was present at, one of the meetings called to put this document together. We believed very strongly that a non-partisan approach from all of us here in Canberra was going to be a much more sensible approach. I wonder why Mr Stanhope put the motion on the table this morning. It was viewed by the people at that meeting that the best course was to take a constructive approach to this whole mess and try to come up with something that was good for Canberra. I table the submission, for the information of members. Obviously, Mr Stanhope has a copy but other members may not. It has a number of positive recommendations.
But we did not stop there. I had a meeting last week with the Prime Minister with regard to the future of the national capital. At that meeting the business community and I, together with Margaret Reid and representatives of the region around Canberra, presented the submission I have just tabled to Senator Ian Macdonald as the Minister responsible for territories. That meeting requested that in a few weeks' time Senator Macdonald report back to us on progress with regard to the recommendations that are part of that submission. Again, that is a positive approach.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .