Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 9 Hansard (6 September) . . Page.. 2905 ..
MR SMYTH (continuing):
Now, Professor Nicholls, in the review, said 50 per cent. The majority of the members of the committee said 50 per cent, but it did not get up. That is the process. Mr Corbell then goes on to list the "Rejected attempt to allow development at the Federal Golf Club". Mr Speaker, there was enormous consultation on this, and everyone knew that on the day it would come down to a point in time-
Mr Corbell: And you ignored it at every step of the way.
MR SMYTH: Mr Speaker, the whole purpose of the consultation is to lead to a point in time where the Assembly, as elected representatives, get to make the decision. They got to make that decision. Again, when the process suits him, Mr Corbell is agreeable to it but, when the process does not do what he wants, he thinks the process is somehow flawed.
He goes on to talk about "Rejected attempt to introduce rural residential development". I actually thought that rural residential land was an issue before the urban services committee and that, although one proposal certainly has not gone ahead, we are all still awaiting the report of that committee about the future of rural residential in the ACT. So again, we are just spinning webs here. There is work being done. I will await the outcome of the review by the committee.
His next dot point is "Exposed attempts to influence independent consultants report on rural residential development". This gets irksome, because this is the old Labor Party tactic. If you say it enough, some day somebody will actually believe it is true. "We have said it so often, we actually believe it ourselves." It just shows how quickly and easily one can fool oneself just by simply repeating the mantra. If you say it over and over and over again, it has to be true. I will read the letter from Mr Trevor Budge who did the report. It is something that Mr Corbell chooses to ignore all the time. It is addressed to Mr Hawkins, the executive director of PALM, and it reads:
Dear Lincoln,
Re Rural Residential Study
I understand that an issue has arisen about the "independence" of the report. I write to confirm that at the conclusion of the project I willingly "signed off" the report on behalf of the consulting team.
As you are aware it is common and accepted practice that where a report is prepared for a private or public body, particularly where there is a lengthy time period, the topic is broad ranging, and the issues are complex that the consultant will prepare a draft for review by the client, in order to ensure that the ground has been covered and the brief satisfied. This was done, I received continuing assistance by your staff. As you know the consultancy brief was extended in the light of the Legislative Assembly's resolution of 28 May, 1998. The additional work was undertaken and the report further developed.
At no stage was I directed to take a particular line on any matter or the topic as a whole. Accordingly the final report, as delivered to you, represents the consultant team's work under my leadership and I am happy to have our name on the report.
Mr Speaker, again, all we get from Labor is "if you say it often enough, it will make it true somehow".
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .