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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 13 Hansard (26 November) . . Page.. 4773 ..

MRS BURKE (continuing):

paddocks. It has been cut down somewhat, as Mr Cornwell has said, so some things that are being done are working. We still can do more. We cannot be complacent, sit on our hands and say, "There we go, we've signed something; we're doing this and we're doing that."Let us keep trying. And that is what Mrs Dunne is doing here-initiating something that will say, "That's good. Let's build upon the things that we've done."

I am sure that it is time that we stopped talking and began acting-acting upon the things that are stated in the protocol and on the things that Mrs Dunne quite clearly brings out. I commend Mrs Dunne for bringing on this motion today, as I have said, to further enhance any other work that has been done to date that the Chief Minister alluded to. It is indeed a pity that the Chief Minister continues to take a very aggressive and churlish stance on private members day-and it is worth saying again. It does no more than obstruct the flow of proceedings in this place. I think both amendments are good. As Mr Cornwell has said, they work well together. Given that this was on the notice paper many months ago, it is a little sad to see some sort of snap thing coming out now, at the 11th hour. I would have thought somebody with your experience, Chief Minister, would have known better than that, but never mind. Let us hope that we all agree to it going forward. I commend it to the house.

Mr Stanhope: Stick to the waiting lists, Jacqui. You've got those down pat.

MRS BURKE: Well, you don't know much about the environment-or water. What do you know about, Mr Stanhope?

MS DUNDAS (10.45): I pointed out in my speech to the substantive motion, and the amendment by Mr Stanhope, that I did take issue with Mrs Dunne's original motion in regard to the way that it called on the government to trial a plastic bag levy and the concerns that I had about how that fitted in with the constitution. But, as a result of discussions with the clerk and with other members of this place, I am aware that now we are talking about a non-compulsory trial, and to work with business to implement this trial. Because the motion before us is actually calling on the government to see this work happen, as opposed to actually introducing a new tax, I am willing to say that I no longer have a problem with that part of Mrs Dunne's amendment, and I believe that the constitutional debate has been cleared up.

Question put:

That Mrs Dunne's amendment to Mr Stanhope's amendment be agreed to.

The Assembly voted-

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

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