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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 5 Hansard (25 August) . . Page.. 1278 ..

MR WOOD (continuing):

First of all it says, "We did not know about it". Secondly, it presented as a diversion the Harcourt Hill proposal. That has been a diversion. There was a problem that emerged with Harcourt Hill and that was the election of John Howard who cut housing funds to this Territory to the bone. We saw housing development in this Territory go beyond levels we had ever seen. We have seen fewer housing starts than ever before in the postwar years, and that was a problem with Harcourt Hill. As a further point, the Chief Minister has been trying to say what a better process Kinlyside was compared with Harcourt Hill. I wonder whether, tomorrow, she will maintain the same remarks, as I understand now that there is to be some media report tonight on that process. I will listen very attentively to that media report which I hear is to be on television tonight.

Mrs Carnell said there was no advice to government. That was simply an evasion. Mrs Carnell has made no mistake - she has been up front about it - about her enthusiasm for rural residential. It suddenly developed. It suddenly emerged. Of course, we know the nonsense of that. The National Capital Authority would never allow it, but suddenly, out of nowhere, came this wonderful enthusiasm for rural residential. With that, note the familiarity we heard here today in the Chief Minister's speech about Derek. It was Derek this and Derek that, and I think that says a whole lot. That familiarity makes very clear what the connections are here.

Given the focus on this issue, the Minister and the Chief Minister had to know. Mr Humphries's staffer, Stephen Forshaw, made it quite clear in the document that Mr Stanhope read from earlier today. He annotated a document, and said the Chief Minister was well aware of this issue. Of course she was well aware of all the ramifications of it. There were ample warnings.

The Chief Minister, Mr Humphries, and the Government as a whole have complained and moaned about the emphasis the Opposition gave to this issue. How many questions? There were something like 22 questions. Mr Corbell's motion on notice was taken up, and we spent the best part of one day debating that motion under private members business.

I come back particularly to two other points. There was Mr Corbell's question to Mr Gilmour in the Estimates Committee. Again, Mr Stanhope read that out today. There it was said, "Are you sure? Be careful". It was not just a - - -

Mr Corbell: Mr Lilley.

MR WOOD: Sorry; Mr Lilley. I will get my bureaucrats right. He was asked, "Are you sure about this?". Any cautious person would have given a different answer. There were Mr Corbell's questions to the Chief Minister in an earlier debate in this chamber. "Listen carefully, Chief Minister", he said. "Are you sure? Think about this". There are all those sorts of issues. So there was no question about the emphasis we gave on this side of the house to this question. Do not tell me that government ears were not pricking, or that the bureaucrats back at their desks were not attending to it. It is simply impossible to think that there was no communication; that the Chief Minister and Mr Humphries had not been alerted to this.

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