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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 05 Hansard (Thursday, 13 May 2004) . . Page.. 1893 ..

Ms Dundas: Mr Speaker, I have a point of order. We are dealing specifically with the amendment moved by the minister on the blue sheet; we are not debating legislation that was tabled earlier this afternoon. I need your ruling on this, but I feel that Mr Corbell is pre-empting debate on an order of the day.

Mr Quinlan: Aren’t we smart to think about it, though?

Ms Dundas: I’m asking for clarification.

MR SPEAKER: Order, Mr Quinlan! Order, members! Could you run through that again, please, Ms Dundas?

Ms Dundas: Mr Speaker, I seek your guidance. I get the impression that Mr Corbell .is debating something else entirely—an order of the day that was tabled today—when we are actually trying to debate this amendment as moved on the blue, which does not refer to Gungahlin Drive or to the territorial significance legislation that Mrs Dunne tabled this afternoon.

MR CORBELL: On the point of order, Mr Speaker, I am responding to the debating point Mrs Dunne raised in her opposition to this, when she said, “Don’t pass this amendment; pass my bill instead.” I am responding to that point in the debate, and I think it is legitimate to do so.

MR SPEAKER: Yes, I agree with you.

Ms Dundas: Okay. I was seeking clarification.

MR CORBELL: That is the difference that members must bear in mind in this place. Either you can deal with Gungahlin Drive specifically through this amendment, or you can accept Mrs Dunne’s argument: let’s not deal with Gungahlin Drive specifically; let’s just pass her legislation, which opens up a whole range of potential developments to fast tracking.

The government does not think that is appropriate. We think it is appropriate to facilitate the construction of this project, but we do not accept that there is an argument to establish legislation that grants the same passage to all sorts of potential developments. That is why we should support this amendment this evening. If it is not supported it will result in the project being further delayed for a significant period of time. Those opposite, and other members who do not support it, will have to justify their position.

The government will say very clearly, “We put the amendments on the table that would have facilitated recommencement of this work, and it was blocked by the Liberal party.” It is a pretty simple message to get out there, and it is the truth. It highlights the fact that the Liberal party is not interested in facilitating this project, despite all its protestations; it is just interested in scoring the political point. Well, we will get on with the job of trying to facilitate this project. I just wish that that rally at Gungahlin were going to be next weekend rather than having been on last weekend, because Mrs Dunne and her colleagues would get a very different reception.

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