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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 2 Hansard (2 March) . . Page.. 499 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

the Government would be quite willing to entertain an extension motion at the end of the day if there is a belief that the work cannot be done within that timeframe. As I have made quite clear already in discussion about this matter, the Government believes that we have to separate the question of the ACTEW - AGL implementation Bill from the utilities package. I simply do not believe that if the implementation Bill is adjourned until the middle of this year there will be a partnership that we could do in the middle of this year. It is as simple as that.

On the question of whether it be a select committee or a standing committee, I have to admit to having gone between both views over the last few days. Just in terms of whether there is any better capacity on the part of a select committee, as I understand it it is quite likely that the same three people will be nominated to the committee. So whether the three people come together constituted as the select committee on the utilities package or whether they come together as the Standing Committee on Planning and Urban Services seems to me to be quite irrelevant.

Mr Corbell: I think Ms Tucker addressed that.

MR HUMPHRIES: That may be the case, but I do not think that the issue was all that relevant in terms of difference. I do note that on my counting of the notice paper there are 39 inquiries running at present by Assembly committees. That is a very large number. I suspect it is probably a record. It would be nice to go back and check at some stage. I suspect it is a record number of inquiries being undertaken at any one time. I have to say I have my doubts on occasions about whether we can competently investigate that many matters across that many committees, with the number of issues and the public consultation and all those sorts of things that go into that process, without losing quality at some point along the way. I am still proposing that we have an inquiry into this, but I think that putting it into the mainstream of the Urban Services Committee is a slightly more sensible approach than putting it into yet another select committee.

Mr Speaker, I note in passing that Mr Corbell's motion apparently would exclude Mr Kaine from any capacity to nominate to the committee because Mr Kaine is neither an Independent member of the Assembly nor a member of the ACT Greens, as I understand it.

Mr Kaine: I have pointed this out before, but nobody listened.

MR HUMPHRIES: So Mr Kaine was right about ulterior motives, but that is the ulterior motive - to get rid of Mr Kaine. Do not worry, Trevor; we are on your side when it comes to this. So, Mr Speaker, I think that it would be better, on balance, to have it go to the Urban Services Committee and, as I say, I think a timeframe should also be there, and that is the reason for the Government's proposed amendment to Ms Tucker's motion.

MR CORBELL: Mr Speaker, I seek leave to speak again, just briefly. Mr Humphries is quite right, by omission rather than by ulterior motive. If Mr Kaine would like to move an amendment, I certainly would be open to that. Indeed, if it is possible, I seek leave to amend the motion to include Mr Kaine as a member of the Canberra Liberals.

Mr Smyth: No, he's not.

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