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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 5 Hansard (25 August) . . Page.. 1198 ..

MS CARNELL (continuing):

Most, if not all, members of the Assembly had been briefed by Mr Whitcombe on this proposal. I understand that the then leader of the Labor Party supported the proposal in principle. The Government was motivated by its desire to support an innovative development proposal. Obviously, so was Andrew Whitecross. We wished to recognise the long association of the Bolton family with this area. We set very strict preconditions and we accepted responsibility for meeting costs if the development did not proceed. These decisions were taken, having regard to the benefits of the initial work to the Territory, even if the development did not proceed. Members may recall the launch by the then Leader of the Opposition, Mr Berry, of his election policy "Working Capital". Members should now know that Mr Berry conducted media interviews on this policy launch from the Bolton farm when he was having a look at this development. Some secret deal! It is nonsense for the Opposition to claim that they were not aware of the proposal. Few matters have been debated more fully in this Assembly.

The costs incurred by the Territory have proved valuable. The information obtained from the initial work on the preliminary agreement will be used for further assessments. This includes any work as part of the Government's review of rural residential development. The Assembly has, by resolution on 28 May 1998, supported the Government's commitment to establish rural residential development in the ACT. Therefore, the money spent will go to a very good purpose, something supported by the majority of this Assembly. I believe the objective should be to implement the resolution of the Assembly that rural residential development should exist. As with the Kinlyside proposal, such developments will be subject to the highest planning and environmental standards being satisfied.

Mr Speaker, I think the approach that I and Mr Humphries have taken on this issue, in that the moment we knew that there could have been some confusion caused by our use of the words "block" and "lease" I immediately wrote to members of the Assembly and apologised, is an approach that all members of this Assembly should applaud. Unfortunately, as we know, those opposite did not take the same approach when they were in government, a very long time ago now. Their approach was: "Never apologise. Never say you are wrong. Just tough it out". That is not the approach that this side of the house takes. When we have made a mistake, we admit it and we apologise. I hope this Assembly appreciates an approach that is open, appropriate and in the best interests of an Assembly that does follow, I think, the very noble approaches that Mr Stanhope spoke about in his initial statement to this place - an Assembly not based solely on adversarial politics - an approach that the Pettit report spells out as well; an approach that would make this Assembly a better place to be. Unfortunately, Mr Stanhope did not last long in his views on non-adversarial government.

MR HUMPHRIES (Attorney-General, Minister for Justice and Community Safety and Minister Assisting the Treasurer): Mr Speaker, I ask for leave of the Assembly to make a ministerial statement concerning the Hall/Kinlyside rural residential development.

Leave granted.

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