Page 69 - Week 01 - Tuesday, 22 February 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I understand that that analysis is being done by Access Economics - an organisation whose opinion ought to be acceptable. It is a reputable organisation. I do not think that anybody could say that they were in the pocket of the ACT Government and were likely to produce - - -
Mr Connolly: Certainly not the Labor Party's pocket.
MR KAINE: I am not sure about that, but I certainly would not accept any argument that they are likely to come down with a biased report. I am prepared to accept that whatever they come down with will be an independent assessment of the situation, and, of course, we have to wait to see what they say on this issue. Hopefully, that will resolve the question whether this is an economic and financially viable thing to do or whether it is not. I think there is a real lesson for government in this; namely, that the days are long gone when a government or a government instrumentality or a government agency can say, "We are going to do this because this is the best thing to do", and expect that there will be no counterargument. We have all been through the years of the National Capital Development Commission when they made all the decisions. They went out and snowed the community with their slick presentations, their nice drawings and photographs and aerial shots, and I have been the victim. I have been in the NCDC chambers and I have received the slickest snowing that I have ever seen in my life.
Mr Cornwell: And it was not even winter.
MR KAINE: No; it was midsummer, in fact. They got away with that in those days, but it is not the case any more. Government can expect to have its decisions challenged, and I think this is a clear demonstration that there are people in the community who are well qualified to challenge the Government.
Mr Lamont: And on the Planning Committee.
MR KAINE: We were well qualified to accept the argument that was put to us, which is why written into these recommendations is the requirement that this independent evaluation be done. At least we had the background and the ability to accept the argument that what the Government, through its agencies, was saying was not necessarily the definitive argument; that there was an alternative argument. We were not in a position to make a judgment as between the two - there are people better qualified than us to do that - and such a study is being done, and I believe that it is being done by an organisation that is competent to come down with an independent assessment of those things.
I do believe, as I have said before, that when you look at the range of material that the committee had to consider in this case, that went way beyond the arguments that could possibly be related solely to North Watson, it represents a new development in public involvement. There is a clear message here that community consultation had better mean what it says. The community is saying, "If you do not listen to what we have to say, we are going to convince you that you are wrong". A very small group of people out there spent an enormous amount of their time, their energy and their resources in mounting the counterargument to this proposition that was put to us. I think they have to be commended for that, and I think that that is an indication of the future. The Government cannot expect to have their decisions unchallenged and they are going to have to justify what they want to do. This is a classic case of that, and I await with great interest the outcome of the independent inquiry.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .