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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 8 Hansard (19 August) . . Page.. 2859 ..

MRS DUNNE (continuing):

up all the views of the community because they're so diverse."Yes, they are diverse. People from residents associations say we shouldn't make draft variation 200. The Property Council says we shouldn't make draft variation 200. The Housing Industry Association says we shouldn't make draft variation 200. The Planning Institute says we shouldn't make draft variation 200 and, even if Mr Corbell says otherwise, so does the MBA. Individual organisations, for a whole range of different reasons-this is out of the Chronicle-say that it shouldn't be made.

What we did was sort of divine a middle path, unlike what Ms Tucker said. Ms Tucker said we just took the easy path and said, "Don't do it."In fact, Ms Tucker, it seems that you haven't actually read the report. She said, "I really object to recommendation No 2."Let me read recommendation No 3, Ms Tucker:

Then there are nine recommendations to address the needs of the community.

We didn't take the easy way out, Ms Tucker. We took a very difficult path, and we took a path of advising this Assembly what they might do. We're not advising the government; Mr Hargreaves is entirely right. What we're doing here today is not having a dummy spit, Mr Hargreaves; we are allowing this Assembly to exercise its right to follow or not to follow the advice of the committee it installed to advise it.

If this Assembly chooses not to follow that advice, that's well and good. But they do it on their own heads and they do it with the full knowledge that 96 per cent of the people who came before us said, in one way or another, "This system is bad and it shouldn't be implemented."Even people who wanted protection for the garden city said, "This is not the way to do it."We've come through this. We've had this minister here, out of control, verballing everybody today.

But what has actually happened is that they're failing to listen to the committee and failing to listen to the committee as a conduit of the community. These are not the views of individual members of the committee; these are the views of the public. Let's just look at some of them.

Mr Hargreaves said we had a dummy spit and our job was to just sort of accept what the government says. It's perhaps the job of an individual member to accept what the government says. But this committee made recommendations for this Assembly, and this is what you're here doing today.

We talked about defined areas. Mr Hargreaves and Ms Tucker made a really big play about how important it was that we had defined areas, defined core areas, and how that was sort of consistent with everybody's policy. Well, it isn't really, when you look at what's happened.

Let's look at what the Institute of Architects say. These are not filthy developers or ratty members of community groups; this is the Institute of Architects. We always like to sort of say good things about the architects, and this is what they had to say about

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