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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 01 Hansard (Wednesday, 11 February 2004) . . Page.. 233 ..

MRS CROSS: (Further extension of time granted.) I have heard the word “hysterical” used in this place by a couple of members on the Karralika issue and its people and I think that it is horrendous of members to hold our constituents and our community in such contempt that when they dare raise their heads and question the process, particularly the planning process, they say, “How dare they ask those questions. They should just let us get on with what we want to do because we are the government and that’s it.” That is not how it works. We are privileged to be representing the people of this community, some of whom are in the gallery today. It is a privilege, not a right. We are not here for our own individual agenda; we are here to serve those people and the people in the community. The moment we lose sight of the people we are here to represent, we should pack up our bags and walk; we should not be here.

Unfortunately, many people in the community do not know of the arrogance and the attitude of some of the people in here. They treat the Assembly process with contempt and that is a great shame. Fortunately, however, because of the brilliant lobbying tactics of people like Nigel and Tania, over 1,300 people from around the city have expressed their disdain at the way this Planning Minister has approached this process.

The amendments that the minister has put through—frankly, I think some of them are farcical—ask the Assembly to consider, after a comprehensive consultation process, giving him the call-in power to say, “I will do all this. I will consult. I will give them this much notice and so many days and then it will all look lovely.” This is all window dressing—that is all it is—because at the end of the day there is obviously a predetermined result; there must be. If there were not a predetermined result, the minister could have stood up today and said, “Do you know what? This is not being handled well. Obviously this is not the right place to put this facility. We need to rethink this and put it elsewhere.” Given that the minister is not prepared to do it, maybe the best thing to do is to refer it to a committee with three objective people who can sit down and look at it—even though we do not need the workload—and make a decision that will put these people out of their misery.

Some of the people in the gallery have been here all day today, Mr Deputy Speaker. Some of them have not even had a break. This matter is of such concern to them that there are no fewer than 50 people in the gallery on shifts. There was a group this morning and some came back this afternoon. Some new people came this afternoon. Why on earth should they put themselves through this stress because we have failed them? I keep saying that we are not here for ourselves; we are here to serve the community. If we stuff up and we make a mistake, we have to have the courage to get up and say, “Do you know what? We screwed this. We can fix it.” Mr Deputy Speaker, you of all people have been here the longest. You have seen people come and go and have always said that the community is what matters. It is one of the things that you are to be admired for. You have never shown arrogance or disdain to the people that you represent. It is a shame that other people in this place do not follow suit.

This is not a political football to me, so I cannot be accused of using it as a political football because it is not in my electorate. These people came to my office because they were desperate. They were so worried that they were not being heard that they went to Mr Smyth. He listened. They also came to me and said, “Look, we don’t know what else we’re going to do. We’re desperate.” Fortunately Mr Smyth and I gave them a

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