Page 1918 - Week 07 - Thursday, 23 August 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR MULCAHY (Molonglo) (11.20): As has been made clear by my colleague Mr Seselja, we will be supporting the disallowance motion. I would first like to take issue with the matters raised by Ms Porter, who seemed to be castigating Mr Seselja for daring to express a view contrary to a report from a committee on which he sits which is dominated by members of the government.
I find outrageous the constant approach in this place suggesting that once you are on a committee you are muzzled and you cannot express your own view. I take great exception to that; it is something that we have to resist. I think that the people of Canberra will not accept it. I take strong issue with the view that you have to try and silence the shadow planning minister when he expresses a valid point of view because he is sitting as a minority of one out of three on a committee. The principle at stake here is that you are bound by every decision of those committees and you can never, ever take exception: you are never allowed to take a contrary point of view.
On the committee I am a member of, I have seen things put up by Dr Foskey where I think, “Well, I do not think it is particularly smart, but we will let it go through.” You do not have to write a dissenting report on every single item to make it clear that you do not necessarily think that something the committee has decided on is the best course of action. If that was the case, we would be writing dissenting reports all day long. The criticism of Mr Seselja that he is in some way bound not to question this particular change is fallacious and cannot be supported.
My concerns are not about the consultation process that the minister detailed in itself; rather, they are, most specifically, as Mr Seselja pointed out, about the concerns of the Woden Valley Community Council that have been expressed here today and the concerns of the MBA, the southern cross club and, most importantly, fellow residents of the Woden area. I think I am the only MLA living the Woden Valley area, and therefore—
Mr Barr: No, I think Simon does.
MR MULCAHY: Simon has moved out there now, has he? He has changed residence? Sorry; I thought he was out at Weston. Anyway, I certainly take a keen interest in the development of this area. It is one of the most desirable areas in Canberra and has one of the greatest potentials in terms of future living. To a large extent, it is probably the geographic heart—
Debate interrupted in accordance with standing order 74 and the resumption of the debate made an order of the day for a later hour.
Sitting suspended from 12:31 to 2.30 pm.
MR MULCAHY: My understanding is that the key feature of the variation to territory plan No 259 is the replacement of the current B8 entertainment, accommodation and leisure use policy for the north-west area of the Woden town centre on land north of Launceston Street—that is Launceston, not lawn or anything else, for the benefit of those who are unfamiliar with that area. Launceston sits on the Tamar River, near where the proposed pulp mill is going to be built. I am pleased that Phillip oval and Phillip pool and ice-skating rink are to be retained and protected. For
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .