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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 11 Hansard (29 November) . . Page.. 3463 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

Then, Mr Osborne, the consultant said that any development of the brickworks had to be funded by residential development. Then, at the next meeting, the government said, "No, no, that's not true; it doesn't have to be funded by residential development," and the meeting went into uproar, Mr Osborne, because the meeting had been told the week before that any-

MR TEMPORARY DEPUTY SPEAKER: Ms Tucker, direct your remarks to the chair.

MS TUCKER: I am addressing him through you, Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker. Then the community went into uproar because they knew that they had been told the week before that any refurbishment of the brickworks had to be funded by development, and so it goes on. I can see that people want me to wind up so I will not go on. I said it all in my original speech. For that reason I will not support this amendment moved by Mr Moore because I do not think it will address the very serious issues that have come to light through this very flawed process.

MR RUGENDYKE: I seek leave to speak again.

Leave granted.

MR RUGENDYKE: I said that I would consider the Moore amendment during the adjournment. As I said before, I did not go to the fight. I only know from the news what came out of that fight. Incidentally, did you hear about the Mike Tyson fight at Madison Square Garden? A meeting broke out. Sorry. It was a poor attempt. Okay. I will support the amendment as a fair compromise, given that any proposed residential development on this site will come to the urban services committee and the debate can continue there.

MR CORBELL: I seek leave to speak again.

Leave granted.

MR CORBELL: I thank members. I indicate for the record that the opposition will not be supporting Mr Moore's amendment. The reason for that is that it does not address the underlying issue. The underlying issue is that the community have no faith in this process. The consultation process lacks legitimacy and a round table meeting will do nothing to restore that. Indeed, it places no obligation on the government to act in good faith. It is quite clear to date that they have not, and a round table meeting will not resolve that situation. Actually, it is quite contrary to the intent of Ms Tucker's motion. I am somewhat surprised that it has not been ruled out of order because it does have the effect of negating the motion. Nevertheless, the Labor opposition will not be supporting it.

MR MOORE (Minister for Health, Housing and Community Care): I seek leave to speak again.

Leave granted.

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