Page 1530 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 18 May 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
That, specifically, was a question that he raised in a number of ways. If there is any question that Mr Moore believes has not been identified and needs to be included, the Minister has indicated to me that he would be prepared to ensure that it is taken into consideration. The second point is:
(2) considers how the consultation process for similar developments can be improved.
He has said, quite simply, that that was a significant problem; that people knew that the plan was going to be varied, but the design and siting issues were not necessarily subject to formal discussion, or appropriate discussion, or discussion at the right level with the people around. The proposal is that this report be required to be returned to the Minister by the first sitting day in June and tabled in this Assembly that week. I believe that that is the appropriate way to allow the people who have been named in this Assembly this afternoon at least to have their day in court. Even if it is a kangaroo court, determined by Mr Moore, at least it allows them that right of reply.
I turn now to whether or not the inquiry should go further. Paragraph (3) of Mr Moore's motion calls for a general inquiry into the leasehold system and the relationships between the ACT Housing Trust and any neighbour, and whether, or when, or should they ever be allowed to do anything. That basically is what paragraph (3) is all about. If there is a basis for review, Mr Moore should specifically flesh out what he intends to do in relation to that review of the leasehold system, if you like, and bring it back before this Assembly to consider in detail the substance and the merit of his argument. He should then refer it to the appropriate committee of the Assembly.
I must admit that as the chair of the PDI Committee, as an individual, I would have some difficulty being involved in this review, following on from what Mr Moore said this afternoon, because I could not have great faith that Mr Moore would accept that I could impartially review and investigate such matters. Maybe that is not the inference that he was attempting to make earlier on. I am sure that he will correct me if that is the wrong inference when he speaks to his motion in closing the debate. I believe that if that is the substantial part of his motion we can deal with it, seeing that a committee of the Assembly is basically dealing with most of the other matters, except for those contained in the amendment that Mr Wood has moved. If that is the case, then let us look at it; let us flesh it out; let us debate it in the Assembly and argue it and determine it on its merits.
I am, I must say, extremely disappointed with the way that Mr Moore has proceeded with the matter in the context of his speech on the MPI. In dealing with Mr Moore and in working with him on a range of issues, very closely over the last 15 months, I have come to have great respect for the way in which he regards his own integrity and the integrity of others, and I am somewhat surprised, to say the least, at the way in which some of those names were mentioned this afternoon. Mr Moore believes quite passionately in a range of issues associated with urban consolidation. It is unfortunate if that passion gets in the way of a rational assessment as to where we should go if there are perceived problems and how we should address them. I certainly believe that the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .