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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 11 Hansard (29 November) . . Page.. 3422 ..

MR SMYTH (continuing):

The same level of flexibility and openness characterised the process itself. Residents association representatives asked-I think they asked the Chief Minister-that the consultation be restructured. The time was extended and two additional meetings in the form of information sessions were added. They asked for it and it happened. Concerns were raised about alternative Floriade sites, and the terms of reference were extended to cover other possible sites. It was asked for and it happened.

So to summarise: the community brought forward this proposal; they contributed to and supported the consultants' brief; they agreed the consultation process; they helped form the steering committee; and they have had all their requests included. Mr Speaker, that is reasonable process. Those opposite do not like it when they do not get the result they sought, but that is not the fault of the process.

The only request that has been denied is that we stop the process or rule out any development. You have to ask why this was put forward. We think it came from a noisy minority who have denied others the right to be heard. That is what we saw at the meeting last Thursday. Others wanted to speak and talk to the motions, and they were denied that right. That is not democratic and it is an abuse of the process.

Some comments from other Yarralumla residents that I have received include: "I was frustrated and upset that a minority, who obviously had already made their minds up, nearly hijacked proceedings" and "The television news the next evening gave a very negative report and made very subjective statements regarding the outcomes of the meeting." Another said, "The verbal barrage you received was, I suggest, aimed at intimidating you. Let us hope the next meeting is more productive."

Mr Speaker, a significant number of residents at last Thursdays meeting were interested in a rational discussion-and I believe you were there and were one of them. These residents did not rule out the potential of some sort of integrated development. But they were talked over or shouted down by the anti-development group, and when they insisted on being heard one of them literally had to fight for that right. That is unfortunate and it is a shame that the process got to that stage; it was almost hijacked at that point.

The consultation is not flawed. The process is an open and honest one and many respondents were interested in exploring the options put forward, notwithstanding the press coverage. I have some documents here. A letter from one gentleman says:

I have two other different examples of the consultation. One community group was very interested in the proposal for APUs and volunteered that they did not attend the meeting last Thursday after the nastiness. Several others rang to ask further questions about what had been presented. So there is process and there is consultation out there.

The voices calling for a stop to the consultation are from those who will not accept any outcome that does not give them everything they seek. Planning always has two sides to it and there will always be those who agree or disagree. If you stop because a certain group make a lot of noise, that is not poor consultation-that is bullying.

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