Page 1946 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 25 June 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR SPEAKER: The question before the house is that Mr Mulcahy’s amendment be agreed to.
MR SMYTH: Yes, to remove part of Dr Foskey’s amendment which includes section 5, which deals with the need for an environmental impact study, and I am reading from the environment commentary in the report. Indeed, the GHD response is:
If development proceeds, the ACT Government will have to undertake the appropriate environmental impact assessments to determine the effects on the residential areas.
In that regard, the opposition will be supporting the second of Dr Foskey’s comments. I think it is important to look at the reports that the government had in train. Indeed, this report, which is a planning study commissioned by the government for the future development in the area, actually does have, on page 75, the proposed gas-fired power station and data centre on what looks like block 7 of 21 Hume. So not only do the government have a faulty process, they actually have in place a planning study and they just throw it out the window. We are just throwing money all over the place.
We also know that the former planning minister in August 2005 set aside the land in question for a period of five years for the Cemeteries Trust to prepare a plan for an additional cemetery capacity in the ACT. Mr Corbell got it right—I know Mr Barr is not here in the chamber—and it must be quite galling for Mr Corbell to know that his good work is just thrown out in this manner. I guess that is why he came down to do Mark Antony to Jon Stanhope’s Julius Caesar. Remember that fantastic line: “I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.”
MR SPEAKER: How does that relate to the amendment, Mr Smyth?
MR SMYTH: It relates to the fact that Mr Mulcahy is going to delete paragraphs 2 and 4 from Mr Seselja’s original motion. Mr Corbell has just given us a running commentary on paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the motion, and I am going to address his comments.
What we have is Mr Corbell, as he always is—here he is, a team member—absolutely supportive of the government. “I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.” And what does he do? He goes out and exposes the Chief Minister. He absolutely exposes the Chief Minister.
Mr Corbell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: the question is that Mr Mulcahy’s amendment be agreed to. That does not provide an opportunity for members to re-agitate the previous debate.
MR SPEAKER: Stop the clock, please.
Mr Corbell: The point of the standing order is to allow members to speak to the amendment, not to re-agitate previous arguments. I would ask that Mr Smyth confine his comments to the amendment.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .