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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 12 Hansard (13 November) . . Page.. 4132 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

we will see a more considered approach that results in a lot less conflict than we have seen with the Manuka proposal. It was very concerning to hear people representing both sides of the argument on Manuka expressing indignant outrage at the way they were treated. This kind of conflict is predictable when you have a process that is flawed from the beginning. I will not repeat why I think the process was flawed. I went into detail on that in my first speech.

I would like to pick up just a couple of issues that were raised in the debate. Mr Humphries said that, of the 51 submissions, 34 were in favour. I would be very interested to look at those submissions. I am not sure whether the Land Act enables us to do that.

Mr Humphries: The Privacy Act has something to say about it as well.

MS TUCKER: Mr Humphries says that the Privacy Act has something to do with it, but if there is a full environmental impact assessment or an objection - and this applies to another process too - you can see the submissions. That being the essence of the Land Act, you would think that it was quite appropriate that these submissions be made public. In the normal processes, you have the right to say that you do not want your submission, whether it is an objection or a submission generally on an EIS, made public. The information that I have been given is that it would be in the spirit of the Act that submissions on this particular preliminary assessment should equally be available and of interest to the community. We have heard Mr Humphries assure us that it is not just quantity that counts, although he does keep stressing that 34 were in favour. That is why it would be very interesting to see how many of those submissions represent larger groups of people and whether, in fact, that quantitative level is indicative of the quality of the arguments that were put up.

Ms McRae raised a couple of issues that I thought were interesting. Ms McRae thought the PA was brilliant. I think that was the word she used. She believes that, as a result of what has happened to the proposal since public comment, it is now in harmony with what the people are asking for. As I said earlier, a large number of people in the community do not feel they have been heard in this debate. That, as I said before, is the result of a process which was flawed. Ms McRae said that the survey by Labor candidates showed a level of support and that is why Labor took the line that it has taken, but the survey showed a greater level of no support. I find that an interesting argument.

I will close the debate. I think it is disappointing, but I accept the numbers as they are. I am glad to see that there will be a moratorium on other developments until we have a strategic and social plan in place.

Amendment agreed to.

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