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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 3 Hansard (8 April) . . Page.. 710 ..

MS McRAE (continuing):

It is probably true that, were people asked, they would be entirely in favour of the peace park and are entirely behind the concept. But that is not the point. The point is that they were never asked. The point is that it just happened. The point is that nobody stopped to think and say, "Hang on a minute; if we are going to put a peace park on national land some national organisations just might be a little worried". That is what we want from our leaders - somebody there thinking, "Hang on a minute; who is going to respond to this decision? How are they going to respond? Are we creating problems?". That is what we pay our leaders for. All of us can come up with ideas. I could name sites for 50 parks; we could put them everywhere. It is not the point. The point is: How do you achieve a successful outcome? That is the art of good leadership, and that is what is missing.

What I propose is that tomorrow we have a motion on this matter, because we can no longer just leave this consultation process to the NCA, which somehow thinks that its role is simply to put ticks and crosses here and there, and walk away as if the rest of us do not exist. It is not enough to leave things to our leaders here because, clearly, they are hiding behind what a committee may say. Of course, the Canberra/Nara Sister City Committee is going to be supporting this park; that is their job. But it is not their job to run the consultation process. It is not their job to worry about whether Mr Howard or anybody else is going to be worried about it. Their job is to simply siphon the idea and say, "Yes; this is what we want, and this will advance peace". It is not good enough to say that they represent the community view. They were never asked to.

We need to come back to this Assembly with some consultation processes, after the Government has had a chance to ratify them, that we know will be put in place - some protocols that are clearly spelt out and that are public, just like they are for a range of other major planning decisions. For heaven's sake, people cannot put up pergolas or a minor extension to their house without everybody having a say. Why on earth should we allow parks, futsal slabs, chapels, jet skis, rallies around our lake and anything else without our having a say? The clear lesson out of all of this is that we can no longer rely on adhockery and the goodwill of the NCA and that this Assembly must learn from this and take back control. Tomorrow we will have an opportunity to put forward and debate the idea that this Assembly, after the Government has had an opportunity, determine a series of consultation protocols which will then become mandatory in regard to these matters. Then, at least, we can collectively exercise good leadership in that we can anticipate issues; we can defuse the problems; and this can lead to an outcome which means we do not have the ugly brawling that we have seen thus far.

MR MOORE (4.17): Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, for me, this speech will not be about some of the side issues of wedding chapels, processes and so forth. I think those have been dealt with by other speakers or have been determined. To me, it is important that we actually talk about the very principle involved here. To me, one of the most delightful things about being a member of the Chief Minister's official delegation to Japan was seeing the emphasis that Japanese people put on peace. In some ways it is quite ironic, then, that we, as a country that was at war with them, do not seem to have grown

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