Page 1907 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 25 June 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
As I said when this whole dispute arose, I really wanted to see the process worked through, and if the process had determined there ought to be an EIS, that would be good. But I do not believe that it is at all wise under the planning laws for politicians to start sticking their noses into process—whether it is the minister responsible or whether it is opposition members trying to derail things through public activities. I think there is a process.
Mr Pratt: Ha, ha!
MR MULCAHY: Mr Pratt laughs about it, but that would not be the case if he crossed the border—and there is someone who wants to come from that side of the border to here! You can keep the New South Wales system as far as I am concerned. We have seen what has gone on in Wollongong when you start letting politicians stick their noses into development applications.
Dr Foskey: Is asking for an EIA doing that?
MR MULCAHY: I do not have an issue with that, Dr Foskey. It is a matter of how you tackle it. If you selectively pull things out of the selection process, I think that is when the problems arise.
In relation to the process of approval, I do not believe it would have been proper for the Chief Minister to have ignored these processes and to have made the decisions himself unilaterally. In this case the process is still going on and ACTPLA are yet to make a determination on the development application, as amended, that has been submitted by ActewAGL.
The evidence adduced by the opposition demonstrates that the Chief Minister was insufficiently forthright with the estimates committee, the opposition and the media. There is indeed room for legitimate criticism here, and I hope that the Chief Minister will be more careful in future when explaining government processes. However, I do not believe that the opposition has demonstrated that the development process has been seriously mismanaged. It seems clear to me on this view that the case made by the opposition is not sufficient to warrant a vote of no confidence.
I do believe that there are issues that have been raised, and I do subscribe to the concerns expressed in paragraph 1 of Mr Seselja’s motion and in relation to aspects of paragraph 3. Whilst the form of that motion probably goes somewhat further than is reasonable, with all the facts, I think the sentiment there is that there have been some clear inconsistencies in evidence and the written record. I am certainly uneasy over the fact that information that was initially withheld, whether it be for legitimate grounds or otherwise, was then released, in part, to the Canberra Times. Certainly it appears that the opposition has not been able to officially access a number of records, and I am dismayed by that. For that reason, I propose a further amendment to Dr Foskey’s proposed amendment No 2. I move:
Omit the amendment, substitute:
“(2) omit paragraphs (2) and (4).”.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .