Page 3913 - Week 13 - Tuesday, 4 December 2007

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

---

This is the saddest indictment of the Stanhope government’s processes in putting together initiatives when we see that it is only through constant pressure from people like Mr Pratt that it is reassessed. On the second page of the press release, the government says that “the window of opportunity for rethinking the decision to build the new bridge is small”. It goes on to say: “Preserving our heritage has its own intrinsic value.” If it does, what are we doing about it? Why is it that, at this late point in time, we are only now looking at all the data? Why wasn’t all the data canvassed before this happened? The press release goes on to say:

Fully rebuilding the bridge could take between two and three years, because of potential issues with sourcing specialist timber and hiring the highly skilled and specialised workers needed.

Why wasn’t information available to the cabinet when they made this decision, and why wasn’t this work done before the government took the decision? It is characteristic of so many of the decisions that Mr Hargreaves has made. With respect to closing the Griffith library, it was a matter of saying, “We don’t want to listen to you, we know you don’t like the decision.” Closing shopfronts and the Grassby statue were examples of whimsy by Mr Hargreaves, who has proved himself to be an appalling minister for urban services because he does not take due care, he does not give due regard and he clearly does not follow the process properly in trying to inform his cabinet colleagues of what should happen. (Time expired.)

Question resolved in the affirmative.

The Assembly adjourned at 6.28 pm.

---

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