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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 12 Hansard (13 November) . . Page.. 4088 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

I have opposed a range of developments. In fact, I have challenged this very developer - Morris Consolidated - in the Supreme Court on a range of its developments. So, it is not as though I am saying, "Just let any development go ahead". I am not. As far as I was concerned, those particular developments - the ones that I opposed in the Supreme Court - were inconsistent with the Y plan. They were consistent with Tony Powell's thinking, granted; but they were inconsistent with the Y plan. That is why I challenged them. But that is history.

The final thing I would like to discuss, Mr Speaker, is the consultation process. We are always in a danger, in the consultation process, that the loudest voice will get its way. We ought not to let that happen. But I think sometimes it will appear to happen. Let me just draw a comparison. Let us compare this with what happened with the loud voice of a very small number of people from the Ridgeway. They have complained and complained, and there will be a debate in this Assembly in the next little while - I do not want to pre-empt that debate - about the issue of noise. But, in the end, it will not be just the loud voice that is taken into account. It will be the merit of the issue that we will debate here in this Assembly, not the number of people who are complaining or how loudly they complain. We have to take great care to ensure that, when these issues come before us, we are not listening to just those who have access to the media or those who have access to good lobbying or those who have a loud voice. What we must be very sure of is that we deal with the issues on merit. There is no doubt in my mind that, in dealing with this issue on merit, this particular proposal for Manuka should now go ahead. That is why I am supporting it.

MS McRAE (12.16): In standing to address the amendment and the substantive motion that we are debating today, I must note as a preamble the extreme irony of the Greens using a survey that a Labor candidate and the Labor Party put together, slightly realigning it to promote their case, and then talking about the inadequacies of the consultative process conducted by the Government. I think it should not escape us that it was, in fact, the Labor Party that said that perhaps the Government processes were not sufficient, perhaps we were not hearing, via the telephones, the airwaves or the letters pages, sufficient of the community view, and that it was the Labor Party that undertook to conduct quite wide consultation via a questionnaire and a public meeting.

What it produced for us, quite rightly, was an indication of the level of complexity and diversity of issues that exist in the community, the level of concern, the level of misinformation and the level of genuine involvement with processes in the ACT. To find now that the Greens are using our material, when they could well have done the same thing, is something that I just want to note, and to say, "Good on you". There are ways that we all, as MLAs, can seek out the wider views to assure ourselves that the processes that we want to criticise, as the Greens do so vehemently, are actually processes that are reflecting community views. Those views were diverse and complex, and the public consultation processes that we undertook led very neatly into what is now the PA.

The Greens' motion has two parts to it, and there is a very interesting implicit assumption in it. The implicit assumption is that somehow, if we conducted this strategic planning process and had some sort of master plan, Manuka would be stopped. What would be the results of all that if Manuka were processed? The Greens' implicit assumption is that it is

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