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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 11 Hansard (29 November) . . Page.. 3417 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

We only have to go back to the issue of the commitment entered into with Allied Projects before the last ACT election to know that this government says one thing and does another. Before the last election this government gave an assurance-indeed, Mr Humphries, the now Chief Minister, gave an assurance-to the Yarralumla Residents Association that it was in no way examining or was in discussions with private sector bodies to look at the possible release of the brickworks site. It took a freedom of information request by my office to establish that the government was in fact doing that at around the very same time that the minister gave his commitment to the Yarralumla Residents Association. So in that context there is no doubt that Yarralumla residents have every reason to feel suspicious of the government's intentions in relation to this valuable heritage site.

The consultation process that has occurred to date by the consultants engaged by the government has been a shambles. I believe this has been through no fault of the consultants, who appear to be professional, capable individuals. I have met with them, spoken with them, and I have no doubt as to their sincerity and the goodwill that they bring to this project.

But the point has to be made that the government itself took steps that meant that this whole process was going to be compromised from the very beginning. It was compromised from the very beginning when the then Chief Minister, Ms Carnell, was quoted on the front page of the Canberra Times as saying, "Floriade will go to the brickworks." I know that the then Chief Minister came out and retracted that statement but the damage was done. It was that sort of pre-emptive action by the then Chief Minister which fatally undermined community confidence in the whole consultation process.

What is the point of having a consultation process when the leader of the government of the day comes out and says, "This is going to happen"? Is it any wonder that people think that the consultation process is simply a rubber stamp exercise conducted by this government to ensure that some sort of legitimacy is given to the decisions it has already taken. That is where it started. Since then we have seen two public meetings and a rally at Yarralumla at which residents have vocally and in large numbers expressed their considerable concern about the government's proposals for the site.

It is also important at this stage to recognise the work of the Burley Griffin LAPAC, which was instrumental in putting forward a proposal for possible future use of the site, and that included a residential component. However, I think it is important to clearly distinguish that the residential component and the capacity of the actual brickworks site to be used as an interpretative site, an archaeological ruin, are not necessarily interlinked.

Where are we at now? We are now at a stage where the consultation process is fatally compromised. Any decision that the government takes based upon that consultation process, informed by the report of the consultants, will be lacking in legitimacy because residents feel, quite rightly, that their concerns have not been addressed. Residents wanted to know that the option of no residential development was one that could be communicated and considered in the consultation process. But what were the options presented to the community by the consultants? Did any of them include "no residential development"? The answer to that is no. All three options involved residential development.

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