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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 11 Hansard (30 November) . . Page.. 3489 ..

MS TUCKER (11.28): The Greens will be supporting this reference. I was interested to hear what Mr Hird had to say as chair of the committee. I know that you have a heavy workload at the moment, but I can certainly see the need for a further inquiry into how the government is managing what is basically deregulation of the hire car industry, although they call it something different. We have met with members of the industry and believe they have legitimate concerns. Hopefully those concerns can be addressed through an inquiry.

Mr Hird accepted the amendment from Mr Smyth. I would not have done that as chair of a committee. I would have consulted the committee first. It seems a very short timeframe. Some members might want to have a bit of a break over Christmas. I would have thought that it would have been better to determine that later. I find it a bit disrespectful of Mr Smyth to impose a timeframe without consulting members of the committee. It could be a problem, so I do not know that I can support the amendment. People need a chance to look at what is a reasonable timeframe.

MR CORBELL (11.29): Mr Hird said that he believed the timeframe proposed by Mr Smyth was appropriate. I can only reiterate the words of Ms Tucker. I do not think that is a judgment for Mr Hird to make on his own. There are two other members of the committee. Frankly, the timeframe the minister suggests is completely unrealistic.

If the minister wants to impose those sorts of timeframes, he has to decide what the priorities for the committee are, because the committee has a whole range of obligations, including other referrals from this place as well as the statutory requirement under the land act to examine variations to the Territory Plan, of which at least half a dozen are presently before the committee. If the minister wants to ask the committee to do this work within the timeframe he suggests, he needs to demonstrate, at the very least, some preparedness to provide resources to the committee to do the work.

Regardless of that point, to suggest that the work can be done by 1 February is quite unrealistic. The committee is engaged in a number of very busy inquiries at the moment, including, as Mr Hird rightly pointed, a major one into Gungahlin Drive. It should be a matter for the committee to judge exactly how much work is required on this inquiry. The minister might like to suggest that, instead, the committee, after its first hearing, report back to the Assembly when it sits for the first time next year what the appropriate timeframe should be and the Assembly can make a decision on that.

The current timeframe is unacceptable. Clearly, the issue needs to be properly considered. This is a case of the government proposing an amendment so it can say it agrees with the referral, but knowing that no serious work can be done in the timeframe proposed.

MR HARGREAVES (11.32): Mr Speaker, I thought in my rampant naivety that the minister was agreeing to the referral in good faith. I am staggered to see that the minister wants to have this review by the urban services committee done in December and January, over Christmas. We have a significant workload in the committee as it is. We are witnessing a three-card trick. It says something about the good faith of the government on this question.

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