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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 12 Hansard (21 November) . . Page.. 3987 ..

MS McRAE (continuing):

I will not be accused of not allowing people their correct participatory place or their say about this issue. The committee acted correctly, other than for the one intrusion that we should not have had. We will reconsider that process on my raising it again, obviously in committee; but I do not accept that in any way this committee has let anybody down. If there are rules to be changed, the Minister may reconsider those. The Minister may forthwith put a variation to the Territory Plan that says that no church of 1,000 square metres will ever be built again. That is up to the Minister to instigate through variations to the Territory Plan. It is not for the Planning and Environment Committee to open up avenues for anarchy. I will not be involved in that and I will not be accused of that. I think the committee acted properly. The committee acted well. The process was used as much as it could be. I do think the people of Chisholm may have a grievance. Tough - at one level. I am sorry, but that is the way rules work. Tough. There are lots of things I do not like. I will raise complaints at the right level. I will not take personal responsibility for that problem. It is not a problem the committee could have solved or should have solved and, as I said before, it is not useful for anybody to subvert proper committee processes by raising grievances in this way.

MR KAINE (3.53): I thoroughly endorse the statement just made by Ms McRae. The committee determined that it would be briefed so that it could understand the circumstances and, having been briefed, we concluded that there was no basis on which the committee could or should intrude into this matter. Due process had been followed. There was simply no basis for the committee to get involved. Ms Horodny's argument seems to be that she wanted to turn this into a case study. She does not have to have the committee do a case study for her. She is quite at liberty to take this matter and do a case study of her own. It is all on the public record and, if Ms Horodny wants to do a case study to somehow demonstrate that the processes permitted under the law either are incapable of doing the job or perhaps even need to be changed, she is quite at liberty to do that at any time. If she concludes at the end of her case study that there needs to be a change, she is at liberty to put forward an amendment to the law.

If people have been listening carefully, this is the second case today where the Greens have wanted this committee to take on a case study and have objected to the committee's report. The other one was in connection with a retail study, where she wanted us to take on the proposed Manuka development as a case study. There is no basis on which the committee at this stage of that project could get involved in that either. It is merely a proposal put forward by the Government. They have called for expressions of interest, and at some time in the future they will deal with it. If there is a requirement for a change in the lease purpose clause, or any other matter that requires the attention of our committee, it will be referred to us. In both cases, the committee judged that it was inappropriate for it to get involved at this time, and in both cases Ms Horodny put in a dissenting report. It seems that, if the rest of the committee does not agree with Ms Horodny, we are all wrong; we are all marching out of step. I do not think that. I think Ms McRae is dead right: There is a process. That process, in this particular case at Chisholm, was followed to the letter, and there was no basis for this committee, or anybody else, to intrude into the process and try somehow to divert the proponent from doing what he was perfectly entitled to do. I think Ms Horodny needs to look carefully at the agenda of the Greens. If their agenda is to subvert the law and prevent people from doing the things they are entitled to do under the law, their policy needs to be damn well revised.

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