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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 3 Hansard (9 March) . . Page.. 834 ..

MR SMYTH (continuing):

through the power station will create new jobs. The partnership will give surety to the jobs that already exist, unlike Labor's blinkered approach, which has already cost 200 jobs in the ACT.

There is a lot of good in this partnership. There is a lot of good for the ACT. There is a lot of good for the ACT job market. There is a lot of good for the ACT environment, and there is a lot of good for the ACT's most valuable asset. We on this side of the house, and some of the Independents, take this proposal very seriously. We have looked at the options. In refusing this proposal, those opposite are not living up to their responsibilities. Instead, we get from them rhetoric and a blinkered approach to a modern world in which they have no relevance and play no part because they choose to live somewhere else.

The option that we are now faced with is a good one, and it should be given the go-ahead by the Assembly. This is an option which will create jobs. This is an option for the environment, and this is an option which will protect the ACT's most valuable asset into the next century.

MR CORBELL: Mr Speaker, I seek leave to speak again to Ms Tucker's amendment.

Leave granted.

Mr Humphries: It is not a filibuster, is it, Simon?

MR CORBELL: Interjections are highly disorderly, Mr Humphries. You should be aware of that. Mr Smyth, in the speech we have just heard, focused on three issues - jobs, the environment and protecting the value of the asset. Mr Smyth made much of the gas-fired power station or, as he called it, the gas-powered fire station. The issue here is one of whom we believe. There is no commitment to build this power station. There is a commitment to investigate and consider the appropriateness of building one. That is a carrot. There is no commitment to build a power station, and we should not be making decisions in this place today as though it is going to happen, as Mr Smyth put forward.

Mr Smyth: You asked a question. I responded to your question.

MR CORBELL: Mr Smyth stood up in this place today and argued the case for this sale on the ground that it is going to be great for the environment. His argument was based entirely on a hypothetical scenario. Quite clearly, the argument from Mr Smyth today was based on complete supposition.

Mr Smyth: You asked a question this morning.

MR CORBELL: Mr Smyth says that we asked a question. Mr Smyth was making the argument that this Assembly should support this proposal because there will be a gas-fired power station. The reality is that there is no such guarantee. The lack of interjections from opposite only confirms that that is the case. The only guarantee is that it will be looked at.

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