Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 6 Hansard (23 May) . . Page.. 1647 ..

MS McRAE (continuing):

The Commonwealth's contribution was, in the mind of somebody a year later, in the form of some generalised discussion. There was nothing on the table - no contract, no exchange of letters, no bottom line. Someone just happened to remember it a year later. I have nothing at all against him; I am sure that his recollections are perfectly correct. All of us know full well that what happens in discussions in Ministers' offices is not always what appears on the dotted bottom line of public contractual agreements. There are plenty of things that are canvassed in the comfort zone of "Well, mate, yes", "Maybe", "Of course", "We are terribly responsible", and "Yes, we will follow all that through". Do we not all know that and, what is more, do we not all know that to our own cost?

In the second reading speech on the Bill granting self-government, we were promised quite a few things, particularly in relation to this building and a State parliament for the ACT. Was that ever delivered? No. Things that are talked about in Ministers' offices are not necessarily things that are delivered in cold, hard cash. What this Assembly has every right to know is this: Where is the dollar amount that the Commonwealth is willing to pay, is able to pay and will pay for the clean-up of Kingston? We have yet to see that. It is perfectly proper for this committee to ask for those details before it wholeheartedly recommends a very strange, lopsided deal which will be a cost to the Territory rather than a gain to the Territory.

Of course we would all like to see development at Kingston, and we would like to see it fairly quickly. I saw absolutely nothing in this report which would lead the Chief Minister to be as upset as she was on 7 May. All this report asked was that some fairly sensible questions be asked and answered. I see no reason why letters could not have been written on the day that this report was put down, responded to within a week and the go-ahead given.

It has taken the committee a year of inquiry and a lot of talk to bring some people to head and to bring them to face the very serious, logical and important questions that have to be answered before anything can proceed at a great rate. I cannot see why those questions were not answered by now. I see no impediment whatsoever to the Kingston foreshore development, particularly when these questions before us are answered, because they offer guidance on the sorts of things that bother the people of Canberra, the Opposition and other members of this Assembly. They are questions that can be answered, as we have been assured by the Chief Minister. I hope that they are in the process of being answered. They will serve to make the development better once they are dealt with.

I commend the report to the Assembly. I think it has offered good guidance for the future of Kingston. It has raised some very major concerns about the future of Acton, which have to be addressed. It has raised some very major concerns about the duality of planning in the ACT and the imposition of the Commonwealth's will on the people of Canberra, when they are very often not in accord with it. It raises some criticism of the way that the NCPA treats us and has always treated the future of Acton. I think that, the sooner the Chief Minister and her Government act on these recommendations, act on these suggestions and answer these questions, the better we will all be.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .