Page 4621 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 19 October 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The first is the requirement in the motion directing the government to do certain things. Mr Rattenbury should understand that it is the convention in this place not to direct the executive in the performance of its functions when it comes to matters such as this. The more appropriate course of action is to call on or to request that the government do certain things. I am pleased that that point has been acknowledged by Mrs Dunne in her foreshadowed amendment. The government will be supporting that amendment.
Secondly, I have concerns, if the Assembly is to pass this resolution today, as I understand it will, with the reporting date. A reporting date of December is simply not practicable. It would be much more reasonable to allow a proper time for this work to occur. My preference would be for a reporting date in March. Again, I acknowledge that Mrs Dunne has taken that view on board and I would like to thank her for that.
Whilst we do not believe that this motion is necessary today, in light of the fact that the motion has been put forward and will be adopted, I think it is more feasible for the government to accept the passage of this motion with the amendments proposed by Mrs Dunne. I can foreshadow that the government will be supporting those amendments.
MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (11.17): I think the juxtaposition of the motions just concluded about the government’s big new office building, known in my office as the house of hubris, and this motion here today is ironic. It is interesting to look at the way the parties will vote on these things. The Canberra Liberals will be supporting the thrust of Mr Rattenbury’s motion but with two amendments which the attorney has touched on. I seek leave to move the amendments circulated in my name together.
Leave granted.
MRS DUNNE: I move the following amendments to paragraph (2):
(1) Omit “directs”, substitute “calls on”.
(2) Omit “December 2011”, substitute “March 2012”.
I was a little reluctant to change the reporting date because the reporting date in Mr Rattenbury’s original motion was the reporting date in the estimates committee report. But it is quite clear that the government have not done anything in relation to the estimates committee report, although they said that they agreed in principle. It would be unreasonable to require them to do a proper job of work in the time that is left. However, it would have been preferable if the government had taken up recommendation 132 in the estimates report in June when it came down. Then we would have been in a position to have some progress on this issue this year.
I did welcome the estimates committee recommendation. It was a matter that I had an opportunity to discuss with my colleagues who were on the estimates committee. I think that the recommendation as it went into the estimates committee report pretty much represents the views of the Canberra Liberals about the job of work that needs
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video