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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 10 Hansard (28 August) . . Page.. 2961 ..

MR HARGREAVES (continuing):

His suggestion "I have a legislative responsibility and the people of Canberra agreed to it at the time it was created" is absolute rubbish. Who in Canberra voted for Wilson Tuckey? We have a democratically elected parliament, we do not need the self-appointed governor Tuckey barging in, uninvited, to run our affairs.

Mr Speaker, some examples of undue Commonwealth interference in the affairs of the ACT include the obstruction of the Gungahlin Drive extension, the ad hoc sales of Commonwealth land, the intransigence of the National Capital Authority on the V8 supercar race, and the minister's contempt of Assembly processes regarding a possible expansion of the number of members of the Assembly.

Let us have a look at each of these, taking Gungahlin Drive as the first example. Labor went to the territory election last year with an unambiguous position on the Gungahlin Drive extension. We were going to build the road on the western alignment past the Australian Institute of Sport, whereas the local Liberals campaigned strongly for the eastern route.

The Liberals lost the election and lost it decisively. Yet the Commonwealth-through ministers Tuckey and Kemp, the Institute of Sport and the Sports Commission-are doing everything they can to prevent Labor from meeting its commitment.

Again I ask: how many Canberrans voted for Wilson Tuckey, Rod Kemp, the National Capital Authority, the Institute of Sport or the Sports Commission? The answer is, none. What right do these people have to block the construction of the road Gungahlin residents desperately need?

Mr Speaker, a second example of the Commonwealth's disregard for the rights of ACT residents lies in the area of land sales. It is no secret that the Commonwealth intended to sell off some land in Tuggeranong which was in excess of its needs. They wanted some quick cash to prop up their budget.

Did they consult with the ACT government over this land sale? No. Did they pay any heed to the territory's responsibility for land use planning? No. Did they pay any heed to the impact such a sale might have on our land release strategy? No. Did they pay any heed to the agreement we had under which the Commonwealth would at least offer us any surplus land they had identified? Again, no.

My next example relates to the V8 supercar race. Members would be aware that the government had taken the decision to abandon the contract for the V8 supercar race because the event was costing us more than it was worth. However, one change to its management which might have made it a better financial proposition was the date on which it was held. Even the race organisers felt that a date away from the middle of winter might have helped to boost crowds.

Out of left field, we find that the decision over the date of the race lies not with the race organisers or the ACT government, but with the National Capital Authority-a body which, for no apparent reason, ruled out any prospect of change. Apparently minister Tuckey thought we had acted hastily to cancel the contract, but it was his NCA that forced the issue.

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