Page 3902 - Week 12 - Thursday, 30 October 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
A committee inquiry would allow members of the community, experts, to have a look at it, and to get the full resources of the committee to have a look at this in a bipartisan way, to get experts in. Maybe David Hughes would be interested in submitting to the committee, maybe Leo Dobes, perhaps the Tuggeranong Community Council. I am sure there would be many people in our community, experts and people who are going to be affected by this, who would like to have their say, put submissions in and have input. The government intends to deny them that opportunity.
Mr Rattenbury’s amendment waters that down. It contains lots of words. It is a page-long amendment, but ultimately it comes down to saying, “If you can find a bit of extra time in an existing committee, maybe you tack it on to the end of some of that.” But that ignores the ability for people to make submissions, to appear before the committee and for it to focus deliberately on that business case. We will not be supporting the amendment. I commend Mr Coe’s motion to the Assembly.
On a final matter, I refer to the ridiculously snide, petty and juvenile comments from Mr Corbell about the date being wrong. On the day that he has had to pull the nature conservation legislation because it is such a debacle, such a dog’s breakfast of amendments spinning around, after years and years of putting it together, and we have all these amendments on the floor—
Mr Gentleman: A point of order, Madam Assistant Speaker.
MADAM ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ms Lawder): A point of order, Mr Gentleman.
Mr Gentleman: It is on relevance to the motion. We are talking about the motion that is on the table at the moment, not the nature conservation legislation.
MR HANSON: On the point of order, Madam Assistant Speaker, in the debate the Attorney-General made the point that it was important to get the detail right when putting motions and pieces of information together. I am making the point that these things can occur, minor errors can occur, when you are putting things together, in the transcription and in the detail. It was picked up by Mr Coe. It is relevant in this debate to show that that is not the substantive issue.
MADAM ASSISTANT SPEAKER: I will not uphold the point of order because there is the ability to introduce topics of relevance, including the bill that was pulled today. But I would urge you to keep, as much as you can, strictly to the intent of the motion, Mr Hanson.
MR HANSON: I am happy to do so. I just wanted to make that point in order to point out how juvenile Mr Corbell was being.
We will not be supporting Mr Rattenbury’s—well, it is the government’s—amendment to this motion. We see again a government that is intent on steamrolling ahead with light rail at all costs. I commend Mr Coe for his ongoing work in scrutinising this project. Whether there is a committee or not, I know he will do a sterling job.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video