Page 4831 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 11 November 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MR SPEAKER: Yes.
MR STANHOPE: That is not being vexatious? Well, in the long, rambling preamble, which was out of order, some statements were made that were not factually correct, and I do need to correct the mistakes made in the preamble around delays engendered or created by this department.
It does need to be understood that a government sensitive to legal action instituted by the Flynn P&C, most particularly, championed by Mr Roger Nicoll, foresaw including Flynn in its decision making in relation to a future life or possibility for that particular school. That decision was taken consciously by the government out of respect for action initiated by Mr Roger Nicoll on behalf of the Flynn P&C.
We can debate this and we can argy-bargy it, but the government’s initial delays in finalising the future of Flynn primary school were a direct and reasonable response by the ACT government, an appropriate response, to legal action initiated by Roger Nicoll, who then, of course, as we are all aware, put himself forward, courageously, as a candidate for the last election and campaigned on his attempts through his legal action to protect Flynn primary school.
Let us actually not rewrite history here and acknowledge exactly what happened. Mr Roger Nicoll, on behalf of the Flynn primary P&C, initiated action against the government. The government, out of respect, did not take any action in relation to that school in terms of its future. Mr Nicoll then, as is his due and his right—and I respect him—sought to attract support from the people of Belconnen in a campaign for election to the Assembly based around his support for Flynn primary school. He was not successful. In fact, I just pause on “he was not successful”. I do not want to be unkind to Mr Nicoll by referring to the vote that he did achieve or the level of support that he received from the people of Belconnen in his campaign to protect Flynn primary school—
Mr Coe: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.
MR SPEAKER: Stop the clock, please.
Mr Coe: The question was about whether he could make a commitment to the people of Flynn about the future of the site and did the government ever have plans to demolish the buildings and rezone the site for houses or other purposes.
MR SPEAKER: Chief Minister, I think there was some latitude for a preamble there, but I think it would be good to go on to the question now, thank you.
MR STANHOPE: That is right; I am through the preamble now. I have corrected the history and the mistakes incorporated in the preamble.
As members are aware, the government consulted deeply with the community in relation to the future use of schools across the ACT. Indeed, the consultants engaged—Purdons—did include a consideration of future uses of Flynn primary
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video