Page 311 - Week 01 - Thursday, 16 February 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Let us look briefly at the language differences between these two documents. The regulatory impact statement for the amended regulation talks about “commercial development”, “large companies” and “top-end developments”. Mr Stewart’s submission, on the other hand, in relation to the arts precinct uses words like “public asset”, “retained indefinitely by the government” and “accommodating numerous arts, cultural and community groups”. Mr Stewart had even more to say. He said in his submission:
… this concept for a major community/cultural/heritage was to be the focal point of the entire Foreshore …
Indeed, the whole thrust of Mr Stewart’s submission centres on the community. It does not centre on top-end, commercial and residential projects. It talks about the community and its public asset.
Therein lies the particular mislead and deceit perpetuated against the community by including section 49, the Kingston arts precinct, in this regulation. This regulation denies the community the opportunity to have a say in how the Kingston arts precinct, a public asset, is to be used. It denies the community the opportunity to express its own vision for this cultural, heritage and community precinct. It denies the community the opportunity to challenge decisions of the government that directly affect the community. If it continues to be included in this regulation it would be a disgraceful deceit of the community.
This is a government that has form. It is like the sneaky little attempt to introduce substantive new measures in relation to the security industry in 2009. This minister attempted to sneak those through. It is curious that both attempts, this one and the attempt to change the security industry law, were perpetuated by Simon Corbell.
This regulation really amounts to a manifestation of the attempts of the former Chief Minister, Jon Stanhope, to bully the community into silence when he so viciously insulted them on ABC radio in October last year. Mr Stanhope said that musicians were “acting like wild dogs going around Canberra sniffing out buildings that they believe should be reserved for musicians”. These are people in the community who should have a right to express their views about a public asset. These are people in the community whose right would be squashed by this government through a misleading and deceitful regulation.
This culture of misleading the community does not wash with us and it will not work. Once again, it is the non-government parties who are listening to the community. Once again, it is the non-government parties showing the government the way. Once again, we have a government that is a follower, not a leader. Here we have a community that is expressing its outrage in so many ways, from petitions to quiet protests to media programs and, yes, even legal action. And why is that, Madam Deputy Speaker? It is out of community frustration because this government does not listen to the community. It has refused to listen to the community until the Canberra Liberals took the lead.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video