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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 03 Hansard (Thursday, 11 March 2004) . . Page.. 1058 ..

that referral is picked up so that, on examination of Hansard—if my fears are confirmed—something can ensue.

MR SPEAKER: I think it imputes some impropriety and I will rule in favour of Mrs Dunne.

MR HARGREAVES: I accept your ruling, Mr Speaker. The planning and environment committee will deal with it in committee.

It being 45 minutes after the commencement of Assembly business, the debate was interrupted in accordance with standing order 77. Ordered that the time allotted to Assembly business be extended by 30 minutes.

MR HARGREAVES: I will share this with you yet again. I am not convinced that the terms of reference of our committee suit looking into a government decision which works to the disadvantage of a particular company. I said that once before in a previous inquiry. I will say it again: I do not think that is our role; our role is to talk about policy and procedure.

Notwithstanding my position on that, I think it would have been appropriate for the committee to have discussed that issue. Were my position not consistent with the committee view and advice from the secretary then, fine, the committee could frame that term of reference, and the chair could come into this chamber and say, “We’re picking this up.” I would have no difficulty with that. But I have a lot of difficulty with having this sprung on me with this sort of notice, knowing nothing of the content. One of my big worries is that you will go into this thing half baked. The only thing that can come out of this is a delay in process. There will be a delay in the provision of aged persons’ accommodation in the Belconnen area. There will be no guarantee whatsoever for the proponent of this proposal that anything different will be the case. This committee makes recommendations to the Assembly. The Assembly does not say to a minister, “You will give a contract. You will approve a proposal for a specific developer.” That is not the business of this Assembly.

I disagree with Ms Dundas’s amendment. I concur with the view of the minister. This is a case of having it both ways. Again: an Assembly committee is being used to try to change a decision of government. This is not the role of Assembly committees. These are parliamentary committees; these are not weapons for the opposition to use for political purposes. I have said that before when I recommended the construction of these committees.

Ms Dundas is as guilty as Mrs Dunne on this. I ask Mrs Dunne: when were you consulted about the idea of widening this to include the lake foreshores of Belconnen? I bet it was today. When were you consulted, Mrs Cross—the other member of the committee—about the widening of it? No, I hear, loudly. Nobody has been consulted about this. This is a poor piece of process. It should be knocked on the head now.

There are ways in which these things can be investigated. I, for one, cannot see a better use for a disused lump of golf course. However, there is a process to go through. The minister is quite right. He says the process has been gone through, and the people did not like the decision. Okay, fine—whether I like it or not. But unless I can see evidence that

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