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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 12 Hansard (13 November) . . Page.. 4080 ..

Ms Tucker: At the wrong time, at the wrong place.

MR HUMPHRIES: What Ms Tucker is saying is that the consultation cannot have been extensive enough because the result of the consultation has not been to reject the proposal, and that the people she hears, the people that have lobbied her and the loud noises that have attracted her attention in the debate have been such that she believes that the consultation, necessarily, because of the volume of noise and the volume of comment, should result in a rejection of the proposal.

I do not believe that that is the way to conduct consultation. Obviously, you have to look at the number of people who make comments and the nature of their comments. Some of the comments made on things like this are simply, "I support the development" or "I oppose this development", or something very simple of that kind. Those sorts of expressions of view are important to take into account. I do not dismiss them by any means. But, Mr Speaker, public consultation in a process like this is primarily about the quality of the arguments, not about the quantity of the arguments. It is our duty as the Government in this place and I think it is the duty of all members of this place to look not just at how many opponents there are of a particular proposal, but at what is the nature of the opponents' case and the proponents' case and how well they make their positions clear in their submissions.

To take a hypothetical case, it may be that you will find 100 people opposing a particular development or a particular application and only one person arguing in favour of it, but that one argument is more convincing than the 100 opponents'. Mr Speaker, that is the position I think we have to accept in this debate. So, if we look at the question of quality of argument, that is the debate we should have today. I might also say, however, on the question of quantity of argument, that, on the particular outcome of this particular public consultation exercise, the result is rather telling. We have had 51 submissions, of which 12, I believe - I do not have the exact figures - were opposed to the development and something like 34 were in favour of it. That is three to one in favour of the development. I think that, if you are a believer in the quantity argument, you have a small setback to overcome.

Mr Speaker, as I have said, I believe that we have had more extensive discussion and debate about this particular proposal than about almost any other development proposal I can think of. It is certainly the biggest since the Territory Plan was put in place in 1991. I want to address some of the issues that have been raised in and about this proposal. A number of submissions made comments about the adequacy of the preliminary assessment and its components. My advice - I have read the PA as well, and it is my opinion too - is that the PA was amongst the more adequately researched, complete and comprehensively consulted assessments that PALM has received during its existence.

In addition to this, the Morris group facilitated the consultation process by providing graphic information, including three-dimensional views, a scale model and on-site facilities for viewing the documentation - going far beyond what is normally required for consultation in these circumstances. Far from damaging local traders, this proposal would improve Manuka and, I think, make that centre more competitive with places such as Queanbeyan, Woden and a future Kingston foreshore.

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