Page 1153 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 20 March 2013
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
integrated. Those are the words, or words very similar, that subsequently appeared in the parliamentary agreement. Mr Smyth then observed that those words in the parliamentary agreement were similar to those in the Canberra Liberals’ policy. We could probably get into some sort of contest about who released the words first. I suspect I would probably win it, but that is okay. So long as the idea is shared, that is a good thing.
I think that Mr Corbell has made some interesting points. Certainly the government is working on this, and there have been various discussions about the best way to make this happen. I think there are some questions of detail that are important. If we are going to do this, we need to get it right. I do note that Mr Smyth’s position in today’s motion is that he specifically suggests that it go to Territory and Municipal Services. That is certainly one approach that could work. I do note, however, that the Canberra Liberals’ policy that was put forward during the ACT election suggested that, in fact, the transfer be to the Environment and Sustainable Development Directorate. So a few months ago we had one position and we now have another position.
There are merits to both arguments, and I think this highlights the fact that it does take a little sifting through. So Mr Smyth’s suggestion that it should have been done by now is, I think, unwarranted and not, in fact, the case. Certainly, I am seeking advice from TAMS about the best way to approach this. I know that Mr Corbell has started to have similar discussions with the Environment and Sustainable Development Directorate, and those two agencies have talked to each other to some extent at least informally. So this is certainly being carried forward. There is not a specific time frame on it. It is about getting it right rather than just getting it done, as Mr Smyth has suggested we should take that approach.
I certainly agree with the intent or Mr Smyth’s motion. I said as much on radio this morning. I think that this is the right idea. It is simply a matter of the logistics of getting it done. So rather than putting in an artificial date by which it must be completed, I will be supporting Mr Corbell’s approach, which simply notes that it is being done. I think that it is great to see that there is across-the-Assembly support for this approach. And I look forward to an announcement in the near future about how this is going to be most appropriately delivered.
MR HANSON (Molonglo—Leader of the Opposition) (4.27): I thank Mr Smyth for bringing forward this very good, common-sense motion that will have the dual effect of improving conservation park management within the ACT and also making for its more effective and efficient governance. I welcome the, I guess, philosophical support from the government, but it is disappointing that they will not be actually implementing this within a specified time frame. I think that we would probably have accepted it if the government had come back and specified a new time frame and said, “It is not going to be June; it will be August,” or something like that.
But what we have learned from our experience in this place is that if specific time frames and details are not set then what happens is the government will drift. So what we have here is that everybody agrees this is a good idea. But if we do not actually set some parameters and say, “The government has got to get this done by a certain date,” then it is very likely that in months, if not years, we will still be procrastinating and waiting for this to occur. So it is good sense in a motion to set some dates.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video