Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 13 Hansard (4 December) . . Page.. 4383 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

Mr Speaker, those sorts of things, I think, have been - I would say very substantially; some might argue about the extent - remedied by self-government. I find it, therefore, highly ironic to hear people like Mr Powell make comments of this kind in respect of these sorts of actions by the ACT Government. He draws attention to the process whereby section 41 in Manuka is to be released for construction of a development on that site. He says that the Government has:

failed to observe its requirements for public consultation and prior consideration of social and economic impacts.

I need to draw to his attention that, in fact, there are two processes at work here which more than adequately address that question of public consultation and deal with other issues concerning that development. First of all, of course, there is the mandatory preliminary assessment under the Land Act which requires the successful tenderer to have a full public consultation process. There is also a second process we have put in place in this matter, and that is to take the tenders that are going to be handed in, or have been handed in, on this process and put them there for public gaze - put them on the table for people to comment on over the next six weeks or so.

Mr Speaker, I wonder about the kind of person who would overlook all of that in making these sorts of claims. I cannot go into all the details of what Mr Powell says.

Mr De Domenico: Where does he live?

MR HUMPHRIES: That is a very good question, Mr De Domenico. He makes all sorts of wild accusations about the car park. He says it is not designated for a purpose other than a car park. Well, the Territory Plan allows for this development, Mr Speaker, and that matter is on the record. He makes false claims about the size of the increase in the gross floor area at Manuka. I will not go into that.

I will make one further comment, though, Mr Speaker, and that is that I was attending a public meeting the other day at Manuka where someone in the audience asked Mr Powell whether he had a retainer from the Lend Lease Corporation. Mr Powell did not deny that. I understand he had earlier in the day conceded that, in fact, he had at least done work for Lend Lease outside the ACT. It is a matter of record that Lend Lease, of course, will be significantly affected potentially by a major supermarket development in South Canberra. The people of South Canberra presumably shop in places such as Woden, where Lend Lease has a property, or other places around the city. Mr Powell has been very quick to accuse the ACT Government of collusion with developers and demand appropriate disclosure of interests. I hope Mr Powell will clear up the question that I have raised in respect of this relationship with Lend Lease, to make it quite clear that his are clean hands. I suspect, however, that we see before us a black kettle.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .