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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 12 Hansard (21 November) . . Page.. 3991 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

we set our priorities, and we are interested in outcomes. The outcome was not going to change. You may not be able to accept that, but the other three of us asked why we would give the community some false expectation when there was going to be no change in outcome. It was quite obvious to us that there would not be.

Ms Horodny does raise another issue, and that is what we were trying to deal with in the statement. Sometimes through these case studies we can draw conclusions about problems associated with planning issues, and we have drawn a couple of those to the Minister's attention through our statement. If case studies continue to occur where we have problems, I agree with Ms Horodny that we should take that on as an inquiry. We have done that with reference to Ainslie. The Greens will always say that we have a problem with consultation. That has become obvious. When they get caught out in terms of their policies, as they have in Ainslie, where they cannot say to the community, "This proposal that has been put up is consistent with our policies because it is urban consolidation, and we advocate urban consolidation", what they do instead is say, "The consultation process is wrong". It will always be wrong.

We heard Ms Tucker today ask a question about the John Dedman Parkway, saying that the consultation process is not good enough. For heaven's sake, we have had the best part of a dozen reports already on the John Dedman Parkway. Then we go to a community meeting last night, which she attended, and the Speaker and other members were there, to begin a 12 months' consultation process. Yet we hear people in the community saying, "This is a terrible process because they have hardly anything here for us to consider". No matter which way you go, the Greens will always say that it is a terrible consultation process, unless it is theirs, unless they are the ones who run it. Ainslie was done in exactly the same way as the Greens do it. They are frauds; this is fraudulent. What you are doing is absolutely fraudulent, and it is to trick the community. Let me warn you that you can get away with it for only so long, because people will begin to see that it is a cynical vote-gathering plot by the Greens. That is all it is about. You will not be able to please everybody all the time.

What we see instead, in the Chisholm issue, is that the role the Government has to play is to balance the views of the church against the views of the residents by referring to a series of laws, a statutory plan, and a number of other issues. It is that balance we are trying to find, and through that balance there are always going to be some people who are terribly dissatisfied. When people are dissatisfied, it is appropriate that they should have methods to express that dissatisfaction and, if things are terribly wrong, for that to be corrected. But, in this case, what we saw was that there was not going to be a change in outcome. You will not always be able to take on everybody who comes to you and complains and says, "This is wrong". You will have to look at it and refer back to the principles upon which you were elected and say, "Do we agree with you or do we disagree with you?". That is how we make a decision. Well, that is how the rest of us are going to make decisions. If you want to do it, as somebody said earlier, by way of anarchy, there is not much the rest of us can do about it, except to continue trying to put up with it.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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