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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 3 Hansard (7 March) . . Page.. 782 ..

MR SPEAKER: No, you cannot. Sit down, listen quietly and you will have the opportunity to respond at the end of the debate on the motion.

MR HIRD: Mr Moore spoke yesterday about there being none so blind as those that cannot see. You are not listening, Ms Tucker. You are certainly not listening to my constituents. You might be listening to some of the constituents, but not the majority, in the suburb of Latham. There are people in Latham who want to get rid of the eyesore and the only way they are going to get rid of the eyesore is by having the development go ahead.

Let us analyse Ms Tucker's motion. When you look at it you will find that she has left out a very important part. A concerned resident of Latham, Mr Dirk van der Vliet of the Latham Residents Association, has informed me that the Latham shops site issue has been resolved, which is not mentioned in this motion. It will be going from PALM to an independent commissioner next week. That has been resolved, but you are not saying that. You are saying here that it is to be resolved.

I do not know whether your means of communication are at fault, but the fact is that the issue will be going to an independent body. On a number of occasions, Mr Corbell has called for an independent body and said that politicians should stay out of the planning process. I just happen to agree with him on this matter. I agree that the matter should be dealt with by an independent commissioner and politicians should butt out of it, because the area has been laying idle, stagnating, for a number of years, doing nothing for anyone but the children who are playing there. If they damage themselves or cause themselves some injury, you might have something on which to criticise the government for not taking the appropriate action.

I would just say to you, Mr Speaker, that it would appear on the surface that, once again, Ms Tucker is grandstanding, trying to win votes for her Greens colleagues and drum up business for her party out in the great electorate of Ginninderra. That is the real truth of the matter. She is not worried about the problems of the ugly site for the citizens of Latham and their wish to do something about it. This option has been on the agenda for some time. It surprises me that Ms Tucker is not telling the full story, that is, that it has been resolved that it will go from PALM to an independent commissioner next week.

I believe that. I have no reason to doubt it. But what do we have here in private members business? We have Ms Tucker grandstanding to try to win votes for the Greens. I cannot blame her for that as there was a member of the Greens there in 1995, but Mr Rugendyke is there now and I trust that Mr Rugendyke will be there after 20 October this year. He certainly has my support and I know that Ms Tucker will be supporting him, too.

Ms Tucker: No, I think the Liberals will be supporting him more.

MR HIRD: Come clean, Ms Tucker. An in-depth report was made by my committee in respect of this issue and all matters were taken into consideration, let me make that quite clear. If you do not have a copy of the report-report No 58-I am sure that I can make one available to you. Mr Speaker, I will be recommending to my colleagues on this side of the house that they vote this motion down. It should not even be dealt with in this chamber, knowing the full facts.

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