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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 8 Hansard (30 August) . . Page.. 2628 ..

MR QUINLAN (continuing):

I refer now to Mr Stefaniak's accusation that Mr Corbell has involved himself in some political stunt today. Here we have Mr Stefaniak, a minister in the Carnell government which lives day by day on stunts and photo calls, accusing Mr Corbell of putting on a political stunt. Mr Stefaniak, give us a break! The budget brought down in this place this year has $3 million worth of so-called building social capital funding for 19 programs, at minimum 19 stunts and photo calls; so please, of all people, for any minister of the Carnell government to accuse anybody else of involving himself in a political stunt is to really stretch the credibility of this house.

It may well be that drag-racing could go a lot further if the promoters could strap Mrs Carnell into one the vehicles wearing a pretty suit and a multicoloured helmet and get five cameras out there. One zip and there would be a couple of million dollars, not a problem in the world. Please do not accuse other people in this place of putting on political stunts. I challenge members opposite to go outside at lunchtime and tell the drag-racing people themselves that they are putting on a political stunt today.

MR SPEAKER: Ms Tucker, I propose to split your two amendments, if you are happy with that, as it is tidier to do so. Therefore, I put the question: That Mr Berry's amendment to Ms Tucker's proposed amendment No 2 be agreed to.

MR CORBELL (12.14.): Mr Speaker, I am pleased that there appears to be some agreement from the government that it is important to support this motion. I am pleased to hear that the government does believe that significant economic and social benefit is derived from those people who participate in drag-racing activities and I am pleased that the government believes that it is important to negotiate for a suitable permanent venue.

But what did we actually hear from the government, apart from saying that they thought this was a good idea? They kept on saying that it was a good thing, but what did they actually do to demonstrate that they had actually done anything to make it a good idea and to turn that good idea into some reality? Mr Speaker, all we heard was that there had been some negotiations to date, but the government really did not have any clear ideas. I must admit that there was a somewhat half-hearted response from the government on this issue.

The very purpose of my proposal this morning is to make sure that it is more that just half-hearted, to make sure that it is more than just a paltry attempt to address the concerns that have been legitimately raised by the Canberra International Dragway. Hopefully, following the passage of the motion this morning, the government will adopt with some more vigour the need to address this issue.

I want to respond briefly to a comment made by Mr Humphries. It is almost inevitable that you have to in any debate in this place. Mr Humphries should have a very clear understanding that the amendment moved by Mr Berry recognises the need to do everything possible to eliminate noise impact. We support that half of Ms Tucker's amendment No 2. Mr Humphries is quite wrong when he suggests that the Labor Party does not believe that noise impacts have to be addressed; of course they do.

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