Page 4296 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 25 October 2017
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Residents and community organisations are entitled to disagree with and oppose the actions of government. It’s called democracy.
This is something that appears sadly lacking in this government. You either agree with them or you are on the outer. You are in the tent or you have no hope whatsoever. That is what is happening with this government.
This brings us back to the motion and the amendment that we have been talking about today. The planning minister is so disinterested in this process that he has left the chamber. He is not even here to see the end of the discussion on a planning matter. He is not that interested.
I find myself in an interesting and somewhat uncomfortable position—a position I am not often in—and that is of agreeing with the Greens. I am sure Ms Le Couteur would agree with me that this is not something that happens very often. I am agreeing with the Greens today because there has been a lack of transparency and openness in the discussion with community groups. There has been a process which they believe is driven towards a particular outcome. They feel it has been a sham consultation. They believe it has had dodgy elements in terms of the consultation. It is pointing towards a predetermined outcome.
The reason we have this motion today is that community groups do not believe that it was genuine consultation; they do not believe that their views are being taken into account. They believe that what will happen is what was always going to happen. We will see in due course what happens with this particular proposal and with other proposals in the area. Residents who have been there for some time understand the importance of that area. I am sure all the people here in the chamber today have undertaken recreational activities in the Red Hill open space area. It is a fantastic area and has not only recreational but also key environmental value.
All sides of the chamber talk about urban renewal and the need for density; that is, the importance of greater density in some of our suburbs. The government certainly is not against development. We are not against development either. But there has to be a balance. The community groups do not believe that their views have been adequately taken into account. That is why I brought this motion today. That is why we will be supporting Ms Le Couteur’s amendment.
We believe in consultation with the community. We believe that the community’s views are important. We should not be undertaking these sham consultations with groups, trying to shut out a democratic process, with a government that is trying to shut out particular groups. That is not the way that we should be undertaking the governance of the ACT.
Amendment agreed to.
Original question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video