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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 11 Hansard (25 September) . . Page.. 3395 ..

MS McRAE (continuing):

My amendment has been resubmitted in this way because I felt that Mr Moore's motion, by default, enabled other public works not to be brought to public attention. He may not have intended this, but I felt that the wording of the motion required public consultation, community consultation through the Assembly, Assembly permission only for events around each of the lakes and not for other new works in the rest of the ACT. I felt that this was at odds with what Mr Moore was arguing in terms of the need for full and proper and open consultation on all things that were going to happen. In my book, dealing with the Assembly means dealing with the general public. Each of us is here to represent the general public, not as individuals trumpeting our own views but as people who are able to distil and follow through and defend decisions we make for our own electorate, for our own party, and for the honour of the people of the ACT.

I thought it was very important that we look at the Assembly giving its approval not only for new uses around each of our lakes but also for other uses around the ACT. The motion as it was moved this morning was specifically in relation to new activities around the lake. The activity that is happening on the lake, the multipurpose futsal stadium, is not a new activity. Under the definitions in the Territory Plan, it is a recreational activity and is therefore allowed. The fact that there happens now to be a bit of concrete there to allow it to happen more comfortably does not make it a new activity, and that is why I thought it was important to come back to the issue at hand, which is the expenditure of public money on new public works programs that have not been previously listed in any pre-public works program publications the Assembly or the general public have seen.

As Mr Moore pointed out this morning, there was no indication whatsoever that this particular slab of concrete was up for development. There was plenty of talk in previous public works programs about badminton courts, about volleyball courts, about other sporting facilities that were necessary for the ACT, but absolutely no talk of this particular new slab of concrete. Under Mr Moore's motion, there would not need to have been any discussion with the Assembly about that because it is not a new activity around the lake. It is perfectly allowable under the National Capital Authority Plan. That is why they approved it. That is why it all went through.

The real focus of the motion should be the nature and style of consultation that is undertaken by the Government when public works money is expended, the nature and style of establishing those priorities, and the nature and style of including the general public when those decisions are made. These may not be significant, as we discussed this morning. It is difficult to pin down what "significant" might be, in Mr Humphries's terms. A quarter of a million dollars in a public works program of $98m is perhaps not significant, but it makes a substantial difference to the sporting community, as we have seen. The sporting community has been very supportive of this particular project - small money, but very significant. It also shakes the confidence of the rest of the sporting community, because the message that came from here was that if you get the ear of the Minister and the Chief Minister you can have priorities turned around and you can have things done.

In itself, there is nothing wrong with that, except that we have been led to believe that this is an open and consultative government, and when it comes to the test there is no open and proper consultation process. There is no advance warning to the general public about

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