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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 8 Hansard (9 August) . . Page.. 2706 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

draft variation, and it is a disgrace for the way that the majority of the committee conducted itself in processing the variation.

I think this can be very clearly demonstrated, Mr Deputy Speaker, by comparing the two reports which the Planning and Urban Services Committee has presented today. I draw members attention to report No 78 of the Planning and Urban Services Committee which follows the normal format of the committee in relation to planning matters. I simply draw attention, at a superficial level, to three points raised in report No 78. The report outlines, as the committee usually does, firstly, the issue, secondly, what the committee did, thirdly, what the committee heard, and fourthly, the committee's conclusion.

In the case of the Gungahlin Drive extension, there is no such reference to what the committee did or what the committee heard. There are very good reasons why that is not in the majority committee's report, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is not there because, in respect to the second point, what the committee did, the committee rushed it through and the committee heard nothing. It is an interesting contrast in the way the committee has chosen to conduct itself on this occasion.

Quite frankly, Mr Hird and Mr Rugendyke should resign as members of that committee. They should resign because they have abrogated their responsibilities. They met as a committee of two in my absence last week and decided they were going to push this through. On another occasion earlier this week, Mr Deputy Speaker, when I formally moved that the committee should at least call public submissions on this matter, they defeated the motion. When I requested more than a 24-hour period to prepare a dissenting report, they moved formally to ensure that I did not have such an opportunity. That, Mr Deputy Speaker, is the sign of a desperate government, and a desperate conservative Independent and a desperate Liberal member.

Mr Hird and Mr Rugendyke have said in relation to this report that they have heard everything there is to hear on this matter. They know what all the issues are and they know what to do. In fact, Mr Hird and Mr Rugendyke love taking the gung-ho approach. If they could get behind the handles of the bulldozer, I am sure they would take the opportunity, Mr Deputy Speaker, but that is not what they are elected to this place to do. What they are elected to this place to do is to make an informed, reasonable, rational, considered decision.

Mr Rugendyke: And that happened.

MR CORBELL: That is not what has happened, Mr Deputy Speaker. I challenge Mr Hird and I challenge Mr Rugendyke to explain to me how they can know what the views of the community were on this draft variation when they did not call public submissions on it. I challenge them to tell me what amazing mindreading powers they have that they can demonstrate to me that they know what the issues are in relation to this draft variation without even calling for public comment. What happened, Mr Hird, and what happened, Mr Rugendyke, to the convention that on controversial draft variations the committee always calls for public submissions? What happened on this occasion?

Mr Humphries: What convention?

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