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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 10 Hansard (23 September) . . Page.. 3529 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

once again a very rigid response to the issue. That is what concerns people in the Assembly.

I understand that the Liberals are not hooked on this, and I do not think it is relevant to go there in particular. This is about a particular motion and how the current government is responding to motions of the Assembly. I would not be supporting the censure motion if the minister had said, "This looks like an unreasonable motion to me, but I understand that there is something going on here that I need to respond to and the majority of members have asked me to. I have got a real problem with the Assembly asking me to spend money on compensation. I cannot do that, but I am interested in the land swap- possibly-or I will at least look at it."

I mentioned in my speech that section 20 might have been possible, which was suggested at the time. If the minister had even said he would look at that, we would have felt there was some respect for the will of the Assembly and the people we are representing. The minister also said that we have been part of passing laws that have enshrined a particular land use. I also think-and I understand it is a point of argument in the debate-that it is a bit rigid as well.

Obviously, when particular areas come to the notice of community representatives here and, if there is a good argument for a rethink on something, we should be prepared to do that. I do not think it is fair to say that members here are aware of every single little block in the Territory Plan that we dealt with when we supported general legislation about zoning and land use. There has to be the opportunity, I would have thought, to look at things a little bit more flexibly than that.

The minister also said that the processes have been clear and good. But I have raised in this place a couple of times the question of the long-term hydrological assessment for those trees, the fact that it did not happen and that there was still concern from the Commissioner for the Environment, even after a rethink about it. There were ambiguous areas in terms of the protection of the trees.

The process was not good, and I do not think the minister would say that it was, in terms of being able to guarantee the survival of those trees in a drought, with the changes to the landscaping of that block. Scientists in the community, plus the Commissioner for the Environment, did express concerns about that. There was some lack of surety about just how well those trees were protected.

I accept the comments from the Speaker that we cannot go into the other areas of concern that have come up in the past, but I think it is important for the minister to understand that we all-well, I do-respect the role of the executive. I do not think we can tell the executive what to do, except through legislation and amendment to legislation, which is a different process.

It is also important that the minister understands that, when things come up in the Assembly and the majority of members support a particular motion, it matters enough for him to be prepared to at least commit to having a look at it, even if he thinks it is not a good idea and it is impossible. Otherwise, it starts to feel a little as if we are irrelevant, and I have not felt that in this place before-I have with the numbers that occur.

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