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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 1 Hansard (16 February) . . Page.. 169 ..

MR STEFANIAK: We have done that in the past and I do not know that it has been terribly effective. I would like to see a number of other motions passed, but I do not know how effective they would be. You talk about testing in the Pacific, but given that we have a French Embassy and a French Australian School here it is not such a silly thing to look at.

However, we kid ourselves about how much notice people take of this. There is a lot of force in the fact that these areas have their own local councils and members and some very vociferous supporters of the points Ms Tucker is putting. In the circumstances, I agree with the points made by Mrs Carnell, Mr Osborne and Mr Kaine.

MR HIRD (12.24): I shares some of Mr Corbell's concerns about the people of the Australian Capital Territory who use this area as recreational or move through it to go to the south coast of New South Wales, the Sapphire Coast.

I also question Ms Tucker's motive in trying to influence another sovereign government. I question this - this is the very point that our colleague Mr Corbell made - because the New South Wales Government has not made a decision. If that is so, then there are two members in the upper house of New South Wales that we - and indeed Ms Tucker - have turned our backs on, and they are members of the Greens in the New South Wales Parliament. I would not be at all surprised if Ms Tucker had not personally spoken to those members. Therefore she has turned her back on them.

We then look at the big picture as indicated by my colleague Mr Stefaniak, who has a reasonable holding in the area - 25 acres, as he said. He is a ratepayer in that area. Have we spoken to the ratepayers? Has Ms Tucker taken this issue up with the ratepayers or the local shires? I know that this Friday, Mr Speaker, you will be representing the ACT at a conference of shire presidents. I wonder whether Ms Tucker has chosen to go and explain her motive for this to the shire presidents or the leaders forum of the south-east region of New South Wales in the sovereign State of New South Wales, the first State of the Commonwealth. Has Ms Tucker chosen to address that conference or those people who have a vested interest? Sadly not. She would not take up those options.

Once again, it is clear that she is point scoring, grabbing political headlines. Honestly, headmistress Tucker is saying, "Damn the consequences". She is telling us that this is what we have to have. It reminds me of my grandmother giving me a dose of castor oil and saying, "It's good for you; don't complain".

Mr Corbell: I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker. A member cannot reflect in an adverse manner on another member and I think Mr Hird has just done that.

MR SPEAKER: I do not know that it is adverse. Nevertheless I do think there is relevance and I uphold that.

MR HIRD: Mr Speaker, I take up Mr Corbell's point. Maybe my grandmother should have given him a dose of castor oil. He might have looked a little bit more cheery than he does at the moment.

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