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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 8 Hansard (31 August) . . Page.. 2748 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

If Ms Tucker believes that the vision the government has in mind precludes all other considerations and means that there is no possibility of any different approach being taken, I have to say she has a very strange view about what consultation means.

Ms Tucker: I just asked a question. Are you prepared to not do it?

MR HUMPHRIES: We know what you think about consultation. You said yesterday, as I recall, that consultation does not mean you have to agree with somebody; you just have to listen to somebody else.

Ms Tucker: Why don't you answer the question? Will you consider not doing it?

MR HUMPHRIES: Presumably, on your own test, Ms Tucker, if we did listen to the people who lived in Griffith and decided we would make no changes at all to the approximate vision that we put forward to people, that would be quite acceptable and all right because you said yesterday that that was an acceptable way of handling public debate.

Ms Tucker: Just answer the question. It would be better if you just answered the question.

MR HUMPHRIES: You did say that, Ms Tucker. You should go back and read your words. I have to make this challenge to you, Ms Tucker.

Ms Tucker: No, don't bother. This is question time. You are supposed to be speaking through the chair. Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. Mr Humphries is supposed to be speaking through the chair. I am not interested in challenges from him. I would like you to call him to order.

MR SPEAKER: She is not interested in challenges, Minister.

MR HUMPHRIES: Okay. Mr Speaker, I will direct a challenge to no-one in particular, but to anyone who might like to take it up in this place. The question that has been asked of me is about redevelopment, urban infill in the ACT. Just suppose a party went to the 1995 ACT election promising that to preserve the environmental impact of urban expansion in the city they would support a program of urban infill in this city. What do you suppose people might say about such a party if, in the five or six years that they had representatives in this Assembly, they never ever supported an example of urban infill in the ACT? Not once; not ever. I look forward to an interjection from somebody telling me how this hypothetical party, which will not be named, might have supported some plan for urban infill.

MR SPEAKER: You will be not allowed to use the word against them, Minister, because "hypocritical" is out of order.

MR HUMPHRIES: Which word, Mr Speaker?

MR SPEAKER: "Hypocritical". It is out of order.

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