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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 13 Hansard (3 December) . . Page.. 4414 ..

MS McRAE (continuing):

and bypassed the opportunity. Where were the consultation processes on each of the major changes that the ACT Government ticked off? Where are the consultation processes, the protocols and the partnership with the Federal Government in dealing with all the issues that affect the future of Canberra? We have not seen them. We have not seen any effort on this Government's part to put them in place. We have not seen anything that says, "We jointly care about this city. We care about people's rights to have a say in their city and we care desperately about what the National Capital Authority is doing with this city. We want to work in partnership for the good of Canberra".

We have seen already the monumental failure that was the strategic plan. We have seen the monumental failures that have come through with the things that the ACT Government is all too willing to tick off, and we have seen the total contempt for the people of the ACT. I think it is important that this Assembly take stock of what has happened in the last three years since that first motion this Assembly pushed through giving a clear indication that we wanted one planning authority. We have seen nothing of what negotiations have taken place since. Nor have we seen any evidence that this Government has in any way taken seriously what this Assembly so clearly asked for. This Government stands condemned for its incapacity to work with the Federal Government, its incapacity to work in the best interests of the people of the ACT and its failure to establish a working partnership for planning with the NCA and the local planning authorities. I commend the motion to the Assembly.

MR HUMPHRIES (Attorney-General and Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning) (11.30): Mr Speaker, I have to say that this is a rather odd motion and it is very hard to understand the argument from the Opposition. Thinking about the position they are trying to put themselves in before the election, I am trying to explain what exactly the Opposition are trying to do here. Perhaps they are trying to rectify the low profile that the planning spokesperson for the Labor Party has had for the last three years by having some sort of spectacular entry into the debate at the later stages.

I think they are also trying to list a litany of issues to do with planning that they hope to make some sort of issue for the election. I do not think that the issues hung together very well. There were all sorts of issues there - some where we had been confrontationist and some where we had been cooperative. What exactly is the message? Are we too confrontationist? Are we too cooperative? Do we work too closely with this iniquitous Federal Government? Do we not work closely enough? What exactly is the Opposition saying? This is the woman who said - - -

Mr Berry: We are saying that you are hopeless.

Ms McRae: I can give the speech all over again.

MR SPEAKER: Order! Ms McRae was heard in silence. I ask that the same courtesy be extended to the Minister.

Mr Whitecross: He was not listening when Ms McRae was heard in silence. It was wasted.

Mr Berry: But Ms McRae did not use spiteful and personal language.

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