Page 759 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 9 March 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
You get the Chief Minister saying, “We don’t know who these eminent scientists are.” I have heard Peter Cullen mention his views; I have heard John Wright talk about it and Bob Wasson. Alan Wade had his photo in the Canberra Times. If you do not know who he is and you cannot read, at least you could have seen his photo, to identify the gentleman as a visiting fellow at the ANU. They are leading scientists and they have stated opinions in the last week over this debate. Mr Stanhope’s defence is, “We have a consensus report.” We do not necessarily have a consensus report because, as Mr Hollway says, they did not always agree. The interesting thing is that, again in a Canberra Times article from yesterday, it says:
Scientists claim expert advice on the massive task of ecological repair after the devastating January 2003 bushfires has been ignored and have described the catchment as a “basket case”.
It goes on to say:
The ACT government claims key scientists were consulted…
I guess it is about your definition of consultation. This government has got form on consultation: “We will talk to you but we are not going to listen to you.” You only have to look at the Human Rights Bill, which had something like six consultation meetings with a total of 120 attendees. I understand the majority of them were against the Human Rights Bill being enacted, but what did we get? We got a Human Rights Bill. We had a deliberate polling exercise that saw the majority of participants in favour at the beginning of the exercise but, by the end, the majority declined. There was community consultation, and what did we get? We got what Jon Stanhope wanted anyway. That is not consultation, Mr Speaker; and you know that.
This debate is important. We have eminent scientists saying they are concerned, we have the community saying they are concerned and the government’s only defence is, “You are all wrong, we are setting our course, we are going to go the way we want to go anyway.” Then we get the snide defence. The Chief Minister stands up and says, “If I might call it a debate…”
Well, it is a debate, the debate is raging here in the Assembly now, and it has been raging in the Canberra Times. You have articles, you have op-eds, you have emails flying around the city. There is a debate about this and there has been a debate about this since the decision was taken to replant any pines at all. We have to make sure that the debate is guided by the words of Sandy Hollway—and I think the words are quite good—that the actions can be adjusted and reshaped. The intransigence of this government and the inability of this government to answer logically is why they will not take on board what is being said by the community. Again I refer to yesterday’s article in the Canberra Times. The second-last paragraph reads:
ACT Chief Minister Jon Stanhope declined to comment yesterday.
That is a lack of accountability. If you have a position, Chief Minister, you should be able to stand up and defend that position. The article goes on to say that a spokeswoman—not the Chief Minister—said that the Chief Minister regarded Mr Bartlett’s comments on the issue as “sufficient”. That is not a defence, and it is not
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .