Page 6027 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 8 December 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Question so resolved in the negative.
Amendment negatived.
MR STANHOPE (Ginninderra—Chief Minister, Minister for Transport, Minister for Territory and Municipal Services, Minister for Business and Economic Development, Minister for Land and Property Services, Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs and Minister for the Arts and Heritage) (8.49), by leave: I move:
Omit paragraphs (3) and (4), substitute:
“(3) notes that the ACT Government has continually and regularly made representation to the NSW and Commonwealth Governments on the proposed development at Tralee; and
(4) calls on the ACT Government to:
(a) give consideration to the establishment of a commission, or other mechanism, which involves the ACT, Commonwealth and NSW Governments for reviewing cross-border planning and infrastructure; and
(b) report back to the Legislative Assembly on its consideration by June 2011.”.
I did refer to this amendment briefly and the government’s reason for introducing it. I think the most significant part of the amendment is to omit paragraph (3) of Mr Rattenbury’s motion, which calls on the Assembly to oppose a curfew. Both Mr Barr and I in the debate this evening have explained the government’s position in relation to a curfew. It is not something that we believe is supported objectively with evidence around an issue, and there are a range of reasons why not having a curfew is important to the operations at the airport and, indeed, to the ACT economy.
We do not believe the case has been made. We do not believe the evidence exists. To the contrary, we believe there are very good reasons, explainable reasons and very strong and valid reasons why a curfew should not, most certainly at this time, be supported. And my first amendment, the omission of paragraph (3), goes to that point.
The other part of the amendment is to note the very considerable work of the ACT government and the active role that we have taken over a number of years in relation to the issue of Tralee, in relation to the issue of noise sharing and in relation to the issue of noise abatement. And I think it is important that the records show the continuous, the regular, the repeat and the strong representations that we made and the position that we have taken on Tralee.
I endorse the comments made just now by Mr Rattenbury that it is remarkable that, on a motion directed at seeking tripartisan support around Tralee and on issues which a development of Tralee would present for Canberra, most particularly in relation to aircraft noise, not a single speaker for the opposition mentioned the word “Tralee”. It
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video