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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 3 Hansard (8 April) . . Page.. 709 ..

Mrs Carnell: It is a park.

MS McRAE: It does not matter, Mrs Carnell; and therein lies the nub of the problem. Since I have lived in Canberra we have known that people hold very strong opinions about anything that happens around the lake. It is a great pity that this process went ahead without anybody ringing the warning bells and saying, "Hang on a minute; this might just cause a tad of a problem". We heard all the noise about the proposed wedding chapel that has not come through; we heard all the noise about jet skis; we even heard from Mr Moore, as I remember, something about rallies that he did not like around the lake. We had a debate on that. It is quite clear that anything to do with our lake needs to be handled with great sensitivity. Therein lies the problem.

The fact that it is a peace park is to be applauded; the fact that we are honouring our sister city, Nara, is to be applauded; the fact that it is to go ahead is to be applauded. But where we have to go from here is to say, "What does this tell us about how issues should be dealt with in Canberra? What does this say about the attitude of the people of Canberra to this Government?". The message is that the people do not like high-handed, arrogant decisions; the people do want to be treated with a level of respect and to be included in decisions that are to be made about places that are near and dear to them. Yes, the issue came to the P and E Committee, but by then it was a fait accompli. What was clear to the P and E Committee, as it is clear to the Assembly now, was that we can no longer rely on our elected leaders being left to their own devices when it comes to consultation. They clearly do not understand the meaning of the word. I have listed the consultations; they told the Assembly about it a couple of years back. In fact, the Assembly was also told about the possibility of a peace park when we were chasing an answer on the future use of the SWOW building. It was referred to then as a possible site for a peace park. It was again referred to in the P and E Committee papers as a site for a peace park.

There is nothing wrong with the concept of a peace park. There is nothing wrong with the peace park where it is going to be. What is fundamentally wrong is that this Government's idea of consultation is completely out of tune with that of the rest of Canberra. Worst of all, by allowing the NCA to have anything to do with it, this poor Government is led even further astray. The NCA's idea of consultation is to decide something, do it and then say, "Oh, dear; people do not like it. Is not that strange? How strange it is that they do not like it! We thought it was a good idea. Mrs Carnell thought it was a good idea, so we said, `Yes; go ahead and build the futsal slab. Yes; go ahead and have a wedding chapel. Yes; go ahead and do the peace park' ". I would have thought that, with a little experience, somehow the warning lights would have gone on and somebody would have said, "This NCA lot is not much chop when it comes to community consultation. Maybe we just have to rethink this issue. Maybe we should talk to a few more people. Maybe an odd article in the Canberra Times and an odd statement in the chamber just is not enough". What we are hearing loud and clear is that people care passionately about Lake Burley Griffin; people care passionately about the shape, the size, the colour and the style of their city; and people want to be included in the decision-making.

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