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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 01 Hansard (Wednesday, 11 February 2004) . . Page.. 244 ..

no evidence; it’s all hearsay.” Governments of both varieties will continue to argue about whether the land should come back. You guys believe it; we believe it. Unfortunately, federal governments of both ilk do not believe it.

Let’s go to paragraph (2), concerning the preference of the Deputy Prime Minister that the Commonwealth should offer surplus Defence land at Majura to Canberra airport. He is the minister for transport. He understands the concept of ministerial responsibility—that you actually look after your portfolio and administer your acts—and he has an act that says that he should take into consideration land around airports. Gee, what would you use it for? Perhaps airport expansion into the future. The lesson from the mayor of Christchurch when she was here some years ago was: protect your airport. It is your link with the world; it is your future.

Mr Anderson has a national view that, as minister for transport, he has to take an interest in what happens at the airport. He is obliged to do so. That is where the people opposite fall down; they do not understand the concept of ministerial responsibility and they do not take it as seriously as they should.

We have had the incredible parade of sites that suddenly the Chief Minister found. He told the world late last year that there were going to be four sites for the prison. Suddenly, at a press conference it went to nine. There were sites all over the place, sites not previously mentioned. Sites were being whipped out of thin air and then he announced the site at Hume. There has been no EIS or study of the effect on the creek. There is no idea whether the site is suitable to build on. He thinks that it will not interfere with flights into and out of the SouthCare airbase.

What do we have, yet again, from the government that was committed to honestly, openness, accountability and community engagement—I love the term “community engagement”? The communities of Queanbeyan and Jerrabomberra were offered the old shotgun wedding—“Take it or leave it: we’re going to build a prison there; we don’t care”—because the government had not done the work. You have to do the work at some stage. You cannot announce things and then think about them. You should not be misleading the community in this way.

We then get into a real dilemma on this subject with paragraph (3), which refers to “the failure of the Commonwealth to abide by its own guidelines for the disposal of excess property”. Even Ms Tucker says that you could read that either way. Maybe they have; maybe they have not. Where is the evidence? There is no evidence. This is just a furphy. In thinking of it as a furphy, you have to wonder about the purpose of this fake airport debate and the fake prison site debate.

I would normally dismiss this motion from Mr Hargreaves as mere posturing done at the behest of his masters, but I think there is another side to it, possibly a more sinister side. I think that we need to understand that the endorsed Labor candidate for Eden-Monaro, one Kelvin Watt, enters the scene and plays a role here. Jon Stanhope, Chief Minister of the ACT, says, “I’m going to build a prison there.” Kelvin Watt, the endorsed Labor candidate for Eden-Monaro, says, “No, you’re not.” So they are going to huff and puff, pump up their chests and have this little fight over what will be done. Mr Speaker, I have in front of me some electoral material signed by Mr Watt that is entitled, “How you can stop the jail being built at Hume.”

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