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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 4 Hansard (28 March) . . Page.. 1065 ..

MR RUGENDYKE (continuing):

Do we have to come down to the lowest common denominator? Don't people own cars? I think it was at the briefing that I heard someone say-

Mr Stanhope: There are 30,000 people living in poverty.

MR TEMPORARY DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will stop interjecting. Mr Rugendyke has the call. This debate is about a serious motion and an amendment thereto and we should treat it in that way..

MR RUGENDYKE: I think it was Mr Stainlay who told me that negotiations are being held for a bus service. I presume that that bus service would run from Civic to the airport or some such thing. But what happens to the people who have to come to the SAAP building now? They might come from Tuggeranong or Charnwood. What have they got to do? Do they have to find a car space here and pay five or 10 bucks for parking to visit CTEC? What would happen if they drove to Brindabella Park? Most of the people I know have a car. Some do not; some use a bus. But most people would be able to park out there for two hours for nothing. What a terrible deal for the people who have to visit CTEC!

There has also been some concern about people needing to go to the airport to have a meeting with CTEC. CTEC might dream up the idea of holding meetings for those people in the visitors centre on Northbourne Avenue. I think there are meeting rooms there. The upper floor is probably big enough to hold meetings. That might be a good idea for CTEC. That would solve the problems of the people who cannot get to the airport for a meeting. I am sure that CTEC would not mind. I am sure that CTEC does not have such a closed mind and would use its other premises to help people.

We are down to perceptions of a conflict of interest. I think that is quite terrible. I do not believe that this matter is deserving of a censure motion. I seek leave to amend the motion to remove paragraphs (1) and (2).

MR TEMPORARY DEPUTY SPEAKER: I understand, Mr Rugendyke, that you should foreshadow such an amendment. We have before us an amendment from Mr Berry. We will deal with that and then we will come back to you.

MR RUGENDYKE: Certainly. I foreshadow that I will be seeking to amend the motion by deleting paragraphs (1) and (2). Yes, I did find something to latch onto for support, that is, the proposal to allow the Auditor-General to analyse this issue. In the words of the son of the Canberran of the Year, Mr James Service, he will go along with any analysis, and the Auditor-General is the person to whom we should send it for analysis. The Auditor-General will have the capacity to get to the bottom of this issue without taking into account myth, rumour or perception.

MR OSBORNE (5.28): I think that we need to decide on a couple of issues here. The first is whether the actions of the minister warrant his censure. The second is the actual move of CTEC to the airport. I have to say on the second issue that I would have thought, speaking very much as a layman, that the place that you would want to be working best in this town is the airport and it is probably a wise move to be out there, but I am speaking purely as someone who is very much a non-expert on the issue.

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