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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 4 Hansard (30 March) . . Page.. 1134 ..

MS CARNELL: The Assembly later today will have an opportunity to vote against the motion. It is quite simple. As we know, motions are not binding in this place, whether they say "agree" or "note" or whatever. The reality is that if people do not support the motion they have an opportunity to get up this afternoon and argue their case and, if they feel so inclined, vote against the motion.

Mr Speaker, the reason we decided to go with the word "notes" was that I listened to comments made by Mr Stanhope and other members of this place suggesting that this was an Executive decision, a decision that the Government should make rather than the Assembly. We discussed that in Cabinet and determined that that was a fair statement. But equally we wanted the Assembly to have input into the decision-making process. If the majority of the Assembly get up this afternoon and say they do not support it, the Government will rethink its position. We have made that very clear. If the majority of the Assembly say they do support it, we will go ahead with it. It is that simple.

We do listen to members of this house. Not just the Labor Party but others made the point that they believed that this was an Executive decision - and it is. But, unlike any other government in this country, we have put a major business incentive package on the table. Compare that with any other government. Look at what Mr Beattie in Queensland did with regard to Virgin Airlines. That was a much bigger deal than ours. When the Mayor of Brisbane, somebody who you would think had some interest, was asked what the deal entailed, the comment was: "If you knew what I know, then you would not have a problem but I am not going to tell you what I know". That is the case in every other State.

We are the only government that puts this information on the table. We accept that with a minority government, with a proposal of this importance and of this size, members of the Assembly should have input. But at the end of the day it is an Executive decision; it is a decision that this Government will stand by.

MS TUCKER: It seems that the answer is: "We changed our mind". My supplementary question is: Given that the implementation of the statement of intent will require the active involvement of the Capital Airport Group, which controls the Canberra Airport and appears to be taking responsibility for a lot of the development of this project, could you explain why the Capital Airport Group is not a signatory to this document, and what exactly their contribution to this project is and why it has not been identified?

MS CARNELL: Mr Speaker, they are not a signatory to it, because they are not part of this business incentive scheme. This is a statement of intent between the Australian Capital Territory and Impulse Transportation Ltd. It is based upon a business incentive package from this Government to Impulse. We are not giving the money to the Capital Airport Group. The money goes to Impulse. It is certainly true that the Capital Airport Group have been very involved in the whole process. I do not think anyone would doubt that they have made many comments and statements and done a bit of lobbying as well. They are very supportive and very much involved, but the business incentive arrangements are not with them; they are with Impulse Airlines.

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