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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 03 Hansard (Thursday, 11 March 2004) . . Page.. 1059 ..

a process has been breached—has not been adhered to—I cannot support an inquiry into it. I will not support an inquiry that has as its prime objective the same sort of issue as applied at the Belconnen Fresh Food Market. The only loser will be the proponent. I will not sit by and watch this proponent get his hopes up only to have them dashed later. I will not wear it.

MRS CROSS (12.02): I truly did not believe I would have to get up in this place for a second time in less than a month to criticise Mrs Dunne for her stupidity. I am just appalled at her modus operandi. I am not surprised by her bulldozing techniques, because it seems to be a technique used by her leader. But I am so disappointed that the interests of the community and the interests of the proponent, the developer in this instance, are being compromised because of self-serving political point scoring.

Yes, there is a need for aged care facilities; yes, the suggestion that has been put forward by the proponent sounds good; yes, I did ask questions last week on this matter of the minister, because I had concerns that, given we do need aged care facilities in the ACT, it should have been considered; and yes, I was concerned because of a political promise made by you, Mr Speaker, that one of the reasons why the ALP was not prepared to pursue this was because of a promise that you made. It is good that you are prepared to stick by your promises. But sometimes we, during the course of our political career, make promises that may not always be fruitful or beneficial for the community down the track.

I asked these questions of the minister last week because I wanted this issue to be revisited. The understanding of the proponents was that the issue was going to be reassessed or assessed. The understanding of the proponents was not that the issue was already decided and they had been clearly informed; they had not. In fact I have written advice on that.

The concern I have this morning is that I, as a member of the planning and environment committee, was not asked by the chair, Mrs Dunne, whether I was prepared to conduct an inquiry. What Mrs Dunne did yesterday was bring to my attention a misunderstanding between what I and the proponent thought was a motion brought on last week versus one that was being brought on this week.

I was aware that Mrs Dunne was bringing on a motion today. She did not however say to me, “Is it all right with you as a member of this committee that we conduct an inquiry?” She did not consult her committee members to say, “Look, let’s have a quick three-minute chat, committee members, and see whether we’re prepared. Do we have the time to conduct an inquiry?” That is a typical bulldozing technique Mrs Dunne has. She feels, because of all her years in this place, that whatever she wants she can do.

This is not the way we conduct business. And I am not prepared to wear it the way it is. I think Ms Dundas’s motion is a good motion. To look at those issues is fine. But how we look at them is a matter for the members of this Assembly to decide. Until we decide how we want to look at these issues, and until the committee members and the members of this Assembly make a decision on how this process should be handled, this should not go any further.

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