Page 1944 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 25 June 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mrs Dunne: You didn’t listen.
MR SPEAKER: Mrs Dunne, order! Mr Corbell, resume your seat, please. I have called members of the opposition to order several times. You seem to be making some sort of sport out of ignoring me. It will not be allowed to continue. Mr Corbell.
MR CORBELL: Again, Mr Speaker, they simply ignore the facts because they do not suit their argument. In any event, the Chief Minister is not the decision maker on the release of FOI. You cannot hang someone for something that they have no responsibility for. Yet again that is what those opposite seek to do. On Mr Seselja’s point No 3, does he have an argument? The answer is no. Indeed, in relation to that matter, it just shows how poor is Mr Seselja’s understanding of the processes of government. Perhaps Mrs Dunne should have given him a refresher on FOI 101.
Finally, I go to point No 4 of Mr Seselja’s motion, “failing to properly consider the impact on residents”. Again, as my colleague Mr Barr pointed out, that assessment is ongoing—by government agencies. It is not complete. Are those opposite saying that they believe that process should be curtailed or stopped? Is that what they say? Is that what they argue for? As my colleagues have asked, do they want a process where ministers inject themselves into the planning process and direct planning officials about what they should and should not look at? Is that the sort of process they want here in the ACT? That clearly is the worst of these four weak and inadequate points they seek to aim against the Chief Minister. They fail on all counts.
More importantly than all of that, this opposition fails when it comes to presenting itself as an alternative government. Members of this opposition should know that, if they are ever in a position of being elected to government, they will need to take some difficult decisions. They should know that the way to work your way through proposals that may be contentious, difficult or unpopular with some segments of the community is to apply a process—apply a mechanism for public information, apply a mechanism for detailed expert assessment, and then provide for a decision to be made. They do not appear to be interested in that. They do not appear to even understand the planning framework within which these assessments are made.
We have planning law for a reason—to deal with large-scale projects that have possible impacts. This process is designed to do just that. I ask those opposite to again consider exactly what basis they are making their arguments on. They have not demonstrated in any way that there was any substance to the four points that they sought to make in this argument.
The opposition think that there is some political gain from this process. That is why they moved the motion. It is a stunt. It is without any substance. I have been a member in this place for a considerable period of time. I have seen a number of no-confidence motions moved; I have seen a number of censure motions moved. I have never seen an argument as weak as this one. There is no smoking gun; there is no failure of process. There cannot be a failure of process, because a decision is yet to be made on the application that is before the planning authority. Those opposite have not been able to highlight any failure in the planning process or any breach of the planning law.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .