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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 01 Hansard (Wednesday, 11 February 2004) . . Page.. 229 ..

“Let’s not make a decision on this; let’s string it out. Let’s deny the community the rehabilitation facilities they need. Let’s deny the communities of Fadden and Macarthur the certainty about whether or not something is going to happen. Let’s string it all out.” That is the consequence of the approach that a majority of members appear to have endorsed today. It is regrettable. The government will accept it, but it does not, in my view, serve the best interests of the Canberra community.

MRS CROSS (4.43), in reply: Having heard some of the members, particularly my crossbench colleagues, I think we need to review our call-in powers. Earlier today I would have thought that it was not something we needed to look at seriously but, after listening to the Minister for Health and Minister for Planning criticising a member of the opposition yesterday when we were concerned about governments and conflicts of interest and looking at another member in this place who compromised her position because of her role as a shadow minister and as a chair of a planning committee, I think that there is a conflict, Minister, between the Minister for Planning and the Minister for Health—and you are both!

There is a further question we need to explore aside from the call-in powers—that is, the role of departmental people advising ministers. The significant power or influence they have on a minister making a final decision on any matter has come to the fore more this week than the last few weeks over the children issue. At times, ministers are put in difficult situations because they trust that the information they are given is accurate, timely and in the best interests of the community, but it has been quite evident in the last few days that that is not always the case. I am not suggesting it has happened, but it is something we need to look at.

One of the things that I raised in estimates last year was the empire building issue among public servants protecting their roles. I am concerned about complaints that I have had from residents of the Fadden-Macarthur area. On calling the government, and getting on to Canberra Connect, to inquire about Karralika, they were advised that it was to be given a low priority. My greatest concern is the interference in due process. The architect firm involved in the design, on inquiries from residents, commented that they had spent enough time on this matter and that further queries should go to ACTPLA, which in turn passed the buck back to the architect. There appears to have been some interference in the process, which is becoming a common factor by departments to relevant ministers. This may also be the case with others working close to the minister, although this is speculative.

As I said earlier, my concern is that the process, which is a matter we have addressed this week regarding other members, has been compromised. The residents of Fadden and Macarthur could have been consulted, as Mr Smyth said earlier, as early as September last year when the DA was lodged. Yet the government waited till January 2004 to do so. Why? There are people in the gallery that the minister might like to talk to afterwards to explain why that is the case. Why decide to by-pass the usual consultation process, hiding behind regulation 12? I felt it did not apply; Ms Dundas said that it was misused—and I think that is even worse. Misusing a regulation is exploiting the system. The residents have never claimed to me that they have issues with what this facility is about.

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