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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 3 Hansard (9 April) . . Page.. 754 ..

MS McRAE (continuing):

In a way, this is a quite big step forward. If nothing else, there is public acknowledgment of the work that has been done on the part of each of these proponents to try to persuade the powers that be that they have some good ideas for the future of Canberra. I do not think it is any concession at all to allow the Government to not put forward commercial-in-confidence material. Clearly, that would not be advisable. But I think it cannot be emphasised too much what a major concession this is, to put this material forward and to let the public have a look at it. It is a very marked difference from the normal processes and it does mean that all those people who are directly affected by it can have a bit of a look at it.

It does expose the Government to a higher level of criticism. I am sure that everybody will have a pet project. The community will probably divide into five different groups and say, "No, Minister; you have got it wrong. We like this one. No; we like that one. Look at the colour of that; it is much better". It does open up for a whole range of extra debate an input that we have never seen before and, as the Minister said, we can still end up with people saying, "A pox on all your houses. We do not want any of it at all", which may then lead to a motion being put to the Assembly if the strength of feeling is there.

So, I do think that, with all the ducking and weaving and all the history of this redevelopment at Manuka, we have ended up on a track where the public can be confident that they can have access to the decision-making process; they have the protection of the Assembly when the changes are being made; they have the option of putting forward further motions; and, on top of that, they get to have a very thorough look at just what the processes of government decision-making are. So, we have no problem in supporting the amendment to our amendments, and we still commend our amendments to the Assembly.

MS TUCKER (11.43): Mr Speaker, I seek leave to respond to Mr Humphries on comments that he made. I will be very brief.

MR SPEAKER: You can speak to the amendment, Ms Tucker. You do not need leave.

MS TUCKER: Mr Humphries was saying that there are very robust processes in place and that I really did not understand the assessment process. We do have concerns with it. In fact, there were debates in this place and amendments put forward by Mr Moore when we debated the Land Act. Of course, we have problems with the process. These assessment procedures are often a justification by the developer for what has been proposed. So, the community is also expressing concern about those processes, Mr Speaker, and let me be quite clear that we also are concerned.

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