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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 3 Hansard (28 May) . . Page.. 772 ..

MR BERRY (continuing):

the economic and social future of the ACT. How dare this Government proceed down a course which is aimed at selling off useful rural land for rural residential development purposes on the very shallow basis that it has put forward! The only basis that it has ever put forward is that it is losing revenue to nearby New South Wales, and that is phoney.

Let us get a few things straight here. This is a sweetheart deal. Somewhere along the line the Government decided upon rural residential development to help somebody out there who wants to get involved in this process. It has not helped Mr Whitcombe, I have to say. The Government's clumsy and secretive handling of this entire issue has, in effect, blackened the name of Mr Whitcombe because of his association with this clumsy Government. The Government's decision was quite grubby and secret. Fancy the Government meeting in secret in Cabinet before the election and striking a deal which it knew would be controversial! Why did it not take the interests of Mr Whitcombe to heart and delay the decision until after the election in order that the matter would not come up for criticism because of the secretive nature of the Cabinet decision which was taken on 22 December 1997?

It is arrogance in the extreme for the Government to put forward at this point an amendment which says that this Assembly should support the Government's commitment to establish rural residential development in the ACT. What evidence do we have that it is a good thing for the ACT? What economic evidence, what social evidence, what environmental evidence do we have? None at all. This is some sort of ideological dogma which has been spouted in relation to the issue because somebody thinks it is a good idea. It must have seemed like a good idea at the time. It is just not good enough for that sort of amendment to be put before this place. If it is rammed through this place, it will bring disgrace to this Assembly because it will show how ignorant the supporters of this amendment are in respect of land development and the effects that these sorts of land development could have on the environmental, social and economic future of the ACT.

The Government does not care too much about the long-term future. It has only ever cared for its short-term gains. That is the way it has governed this place since the time Kate Carnell came to this Assembly. It has been a disgraceful period. The Chief Minister and her Government have continually spouted enthusiastically their commitment to community consultation and, of course, at the end of the day we discover this does not occur. Fancy saying that this was not a secret when it is quite clear from the document that was tabled earlier that the Minister for Planning at the time had misled a representative of the Hall community in relation to this matter! The Minister's office told Mr Kearney on 3 February that there were no deals, knowing full well that this agreement had, in fact, been struck on 22 December 1997. The Minister's office wanted to keep it a secret from the electorate in the lead-up to the election. Nice politics, but shabby dealings with the community!

The arrogant amendment by Mr Humphries seeking to strike out Mr Corbell's motion will not enhance the image of this Assembly in the community in relation to concerns about land development in the ACT. All it will do is reinforce the arrogant nature of the Government in relation to land development. Fancy the Government saying that it is going to proceed with this anyway while a consultant is looking at the matter! The fact of

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