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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 1 Hansard (14 February) . . Page.. 178 ..

MR KAINE (8:19): I had intended to seek leave to do so, Mr Speaker, but thank you for anticipating that. In my earlier remarks I credited the minister with fully understanding the intent of this place when it passed this resolution on 28 June last year and of faithfully conveying that resolution to the responsible bureaucrat. It seems I was wrong, however. By his own words, he has condemned himself. He has deliberately, on the face of it, set about to thwart the resolution of the majority of the members of this place.

It was not a case of mistake or error; there was no mistake or error in the transmitting of the message between him and the bureaucracy. It is obvious that his intention was not to implement the clear wishes of this place. There could be no doubt about what was the requirement of this place. There was no doubt whatsoever, despite his attempt now with weasel words to weasel out of it. The clear intention of the resolution was that there should be no more than one residential unit on one residential block in the heritage area.

Does the minister mean to stand up today and say that that was not the intention of the resolution that passed through this place? There is no doubt about what it meant; yet the minister has deliberately gone about thwarting that resolution and making sure not only that that did not happen, but also that the very reverse of it happened. Mr Speaker, this has to be the ultimate in executive arrogance: "I will not do what the legislature has directed me to do. I will do just the opposite."

I have to apologise to the bureaucrats involved because my original belief was that the minister had got it right and the bureaucrats had got it wrong. That is clearly not the case, so I apologise here and now, Mr Speaker, for my earlier remarks that might have indicated some lack of performance on the part of the bureaucrats involved. The responsibility clearly lies with the minister, who did not intend to do what he was directed to do by a majority of the members of this place.

The intent of the minister is reflected in the introduction to the Red Hill housing precinct review report, because it begins with the directive and then in the third paragraph it says:

This review deals with the issue of whether development in the Red Hill heritage precinct should be restricted to one dwelling per block.

So far, so good, but it goes on to say:

The hypothesis to be tested is whether the heritage value of the area is fundamentally related to there being one house per block and would, by inference, be adversely affected if there were more than one dwelling per block permitted.

That hypothesis does not derive from the directive to the minister that this house enacted. There is no suggestion of any hypothesis to be tested as to whether the resolution was justified. I can only conclude that that hypothesis was set in response to the requirements of the minister. So the minister has set about to deliberately thwart the recommendation that came from this place.

Mr Speaker, the minister can use weasel words to debate and argue about what the word "review" means, but I understood clearly what it meant in the context of Mr Corbell's earlier resolution. In order to vary the Territory Plan, you have to review how it needs to be varied to effect the outcome that you require. It was not a review to determine

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