Page 1948 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 25 June 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR SPEAKER: You can withdraw that in relation to Mr Corbell.
MR SMYTH: All right, Mr Speaker. Mr Corbell said, “Indeed, it would be negligent for the government not to take it into account.” We have the Chief Minister saying they did not take it into account. Then Mr Stanhope goes on to say:
So what we have is no statement from officials saying that the land was too valuable.
Yet we do have Mr Corbell saying, “The land is valuable and it must be taken into consideration.” And that is the nub of the problem that we have today, whether or not we should get rid of paragraph 2 and paragraph 4 in Mr Mulcahy’s amendment.
We will not be supporting Mr Mulcahy’s amendment and we will not be supporting the downgrading of the no-confidence motion to a motion of censure. It is interesting that all non-government members are agreed that this process was flawed and that some sort of admonishment of the Chief Minister, some serious admonishment of the Chief Minister, must occur—Mr Mulcahy, Dr Foskey, my five colleagues and I, the six Liberal members.
What we have got is an extraordinary lack of defence from the government in defending their Chief Minister. Indeed, Ms Gallagher could barely rise to her feet until the seventh speaking spot was available for her. She is accorded, as the Deputy Chief Minister, some respect in this place, but I did not hear a single piece of rebuttal from Ms Gallagher in regard to what the opposition had said in their case.
Indeed, when you then look at what Mr Hargreaves had to say, Mr Hargreaves’s attack was that I did not have an explanatory memorandum to my bill. If Mr Hargreaves wants to actually go to the website he will find my explanatory memorandum. If he cannot use the computer, I will get him one personally.
At the heart of this process is: if the impacts on the residents have not been considered and if mismanaging the process associated with the data centre and the gas-fired power station have not been considered, then there is cause here. Mr Stanhope is, in fact, the minister responsible for the LDA. And you would think that the LDA, when coming to a consideration as to how they would release a block, would release blocks for purposes that are consistent with what the territory plan says, either before the changes at the end of March this year or indeed after.
One of the issues with the community is, quite clearly, in relation to the territory plan, the old part B10 broadacre land use policy. It is great; Mr Barr has come back. Mr Corbell can tell him how the old territory plan worked; it was his, after all. I refer to B10 section 2.4D, the sixth dot point, which refers to:
siting of development—
and this is about broadacre—
in a manner which does not adversely impact on the ecology or visually intrude on the landscape character of the locality.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .