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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 11 Hansard (29 November) . . Page.. 3461 ..

Debate resumed.

MS TUCKER (9.22): Does someone else want to speak?

MR TEMPORARY DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hird): You are not closing the debate. I understand, Ms Tucker, that you are speaking to Mr Moore's amendment. Is that right?

MS TUCKER: Apparently so, yes.

MR TEMPORARY DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, I am guided by you.

MS TUCKER: Well, I am happy to close the debate. I thought I was closing the debate. I didn't think anyone else wanted to speak. I will speak to the amendment and not close the debate.

I do not want to support this amendment. I do not think a satisfactory process has occurred. That amendment appeared basically because a meeting was held, as I understand it, with very little notice. The representative from the Yarralumla Residents Association has not had time to consult with the community that he represents. I have spoken to him and he felt it was a pressure situation. He made a particular decision, but he said he had not seen exactly what the result of that conversation was. Maybe he has now. I did explain the amendment to him. Basically, he took a decision that he had to take at the time. I am not sure what the decision was. I do not want to say what it was because I am not clear and I do not want to misrepresent the situation.

What I am saying is that I do not feel comfortable with the process that caused that amendment to be presented. I personally do not think the amendment is a good one. It is not a good suggestion. I explained in my tabling speech that the process has resulted in a loss of faith and trust in the current process by that community. If we allow that process to continue it is not going to be what the community wants.

I have been to too many community meetings now and have spoken to too many individuals now to accept that a round table with the minister and some bureaucrats and the consultant is going to solve these problems. It clearly cannot solve these problems. There can be a meeting. There can be a round table. We had one yesterday on a disabilities inquiry. It led nowhere. Having a round table is not a way of resolving these complex questions. Apparently Mr Smyth has volunteered to offer a fourth option but was not able to say what that option is, so that clearly is unsatisfactory.

What we have heard from the community is that they need to have an opportunity to be heard on what happens at the brickworks site and to the brickworks. The community wants to see the brickworks conserved. The community is interested in a discussion about the brickworks site. They do not want to be hijacked into this agenda of the government's which not only looks at the brickworks but also might look at Floriade, possibly a move of CIT-who knows who thought of that idea-and possibly quite dense urban consolidation or housing development. They do not want that to be part of the agenda, and that was not initially what they thought the discussion would be about.

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