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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 01 Hansard (Wednesday, 11 February 2004) . . Page.. 176 ..

It is against the background of a flawed and clumsily handled process to date, and out of sincere hope that what has happened up to now can be put behind us, that the mud-slinging must stop and that from now on the people will be taken into the minister’s confidence and be given the opportunity to engage in genuine, rational, truly wide and extensive consultation.

Minister, admit you were wrong, undertake a full and proper consultation process and promise not to scuttle this consultation process with the use of the call-in process.

MR SMYTH (Leader of the Opposition) (11.09): Mr Speaker, as members are aware, this is a cognate debate. I will speak to Mrs Cross’s motion, but what I have to say applies equally to mine. I suggest to members that when we get to the decision stage we deal with the motions seriatim so that people can pick and choose which bits they will agree to.

Mr Speaker, I have characterised this whole process as sneaky, and it is sneaky under a number of headings. First and foremost, one can recall the zeal which Mr Corbell used to have in opposition for proper process when it suited his purpose and the allegations that he continually threw at me that we conducted development in this territory in a sneaky way. The development of the Karralika facility epitomises the approach of the Labor Party, particularly the minister, to development in this city.

Mr Corbell is sneaky on the first account because there has been a general lack of information. Getting information out of the government, ACT Health, ACTPLA or the architects is like drawing teeth. The problem for the residents who want to make an informed decision about this matter is that the ground keeps shifting. You cannot get a straight story out of the minister’s office about what the actual development will do.

You only have to start with the numbers. In his press release of May last year the minister said that it would have a capacity of 60 to 70 places. Was it 60 or was it 70? Of course, under pressure from the community, it has now dropped from 70 to 60. But until that pressure arrived, the minister thought he could get away with it without going through proper process and the appropriate scrutiny.

Mr Corbell used to think it was appalling that a developer would put in a major development application over Christmas. What did he do? He put out for consultation over Christmas a major development between two suburbs, I suspect in the hope that it would not get noticed. It certainly did get noticed. Fourteen letters were sent but only six were acknowledged. Part of his purpose was achieved, but I think the community is much smarter than Mr Corbell gives it credit for.

The other gripe Mr Corbell used to have when we were in office was about inadequate plans—minimalist plans that were made available so people could not make an informed decision. Again, the plans that we have for this development are inadequate and it has been only through the efforts of the community continually badgering and asking for more that we finally have some plans. Indeed, we have plans that actually differ. There are site plans that are different. Which plan do you believe? Which plan can you trust? The problem with the plans is that they are incorrect. The western view, which is in fact the eastern view, is mislabelled. The view that purports to be the view from Macarthur is

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