Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 2 Hansard (2 March) . . Page.. 494 ..
MR KAINE (continuing):
I believe that there is a time sensitivity about this proposal that is before the Government. You cannot just let that sit on the table for six months and expect the other party to this venture to be still sitting there in six months time awaiting our pleasure to say, "Yes, it's okay", or, "No, it's not okay". This is a business proposal, and there is always a time sensitivity about business proposals, particularly one of the order of magnitude of this one. So to let it all just sit and simmer and get no resolution for a long period of time, I think, is quite out of order. I do agree that the matter should be dealt with by a committee, but it should be dealt with quickly and it should come back so that we can consider it perhaps simultaneously with the enabling legislation that deals with the proposed merger of ACTEW and AGL.
I do not support the notion of a select committee. We have standing committees of this Assembly now that ought to be capable of dealing with any matter that comes before us. Every time we establish a select committee it requires additional resources and it stretches even more thinly the resources of the members of this place who are able to sit on those committees. It is yet another committee that you have to attend, and the matter can be dealt with just as well by an existing standing committee of the Assembly.
I wonder whether the Labor Party might have an ulterior motive that they have not put on the table for not wanting this to go to a standing committee of the Assembly. If they do they had better put their motive on the table so that the Assembly can deal with that. If the Labor Party does not like the present constitution of our committees, let us look at that question and reconstitute them if it is the will of the Assembly to do so. To revert to some subterfuge of taking the matter away from the standing committee because there is some political motivation underlying it is, I think, quite unacceptable. In fact, I think it reflects on the integrity of certain people in this place if that is the motive. I am just speculating.
I do not support the notion of a select committee and I will not support that, but I would ask Ms Tucker whether she would agree to setting a fairly short timescale on the inquiry that she has asked the standing committee to undertake so that we can get the legislation back and deal with it quickly rather than just leaving it to some undefined future time.
MR CORBELL: Mr Speaker, I seek leave to make a explanation under standing order 47.
MR SPEAKER: Yes, very well.
MR CORBELL: Mr Kaine suggested there was some subterfuge and alluded to my speech as though it was some attempt to simply undermine the process. Mr Speaker, that is not the case. Mr Kaine is wrong. There is no subterfuge in this proposition. It is a straightforward and sensible one. I just want to clear the record, Mr Kaine. It is certainly not the intention of the Labor Party to delay this in any way. It is simply a matter of practicalities and the workload of various committees.
MR HIRD
(11.36): I heard our colleague, Mr Corbell. As chair of the committee that Ms Tucker was referring to, the workload of the committee is quite heavy. Our colleague Mr Kaine said there should be some urgency. I understand that the Treasurer
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .