Page 1352 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 25 March 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
process has not been adequate. The original motion talks about the continuing delays, the government’s consultation with Nicholls residents and businesses having been inadequate, and the current plans not reflecting the needs and desires of Nicholls residents and businesses.
That goes to the heart of it. We have a hardworking local member who is taking up these issues on behalf of his constituents and doing an outstanding job of it. What we have alternatively is a government that has not properly consulted. We heard Mr Stanhope say on radio that the government did “perhaps a not overly extensive letterbox drop” on the issue. I do not know exactly what that means: “perhaps a not overly extensive letterbox drop”. I do not know if that is 50 houses, 20 houses or none, but it is clearly not adequate consultation.
That goes to the heart of this issue and the heart of why Mr Coe has felt the need to bring this to the attention of the Assembly. The sort of hissy fit we have seen on Mr Stanhope’s amendment is a bit of a distraction from the fact that the government has got this consultation process wrong.
The business owners at Nicholls and residents of Nicholls are concerned. They would like to see a resolution. This calls for a resolution of the progress and for proper consultation. It is eminently sensible; it is an eminently sensible motion. It was properly notified and moved. I understand that the amendment was moved, and it was accepted by the Assembly and by the Speaker. We have wasted a lot of time going back and forth on what Mr Stanhope did not like about the rulings.
But at its heart it is about better consultation; it is about getting this process right. To date, this government has not got it. Even Mr Stanhope, on radio, has essentially acknowledged that the consultation was not as extensive as it should have been. I commend Mr Coe for his motion. I will be very happy to lend my support to the amendments that he has circulated.
MR STANHOPE (Ginninderra—Chief Minister, Minister for Transport, Minister for Territory and Municipal Services, Minister for Business and Economic Development, Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Minister for the Arts and Heritage) (5.35): I think I need to seek leave to speak to a motion that actually had not been moved at the time I spoke before and that it was impossible for me to speak to. I seek leave to speak.
Leave granted.
MR STANHOPE: There are just a couple of points that I will make in relation to this. I will go back to the other point, the fundamental point, which it is important that we all understand in relation to this car park. It has been variously described by Mr Coe—and repeated by Mrs Dunne, who actually was an officer in the office of the then minister for planning that presumably approved the car park—that this is a Liberal Party car park. I guess it is a reflection on the quality of administration of Brendan Smyth as the then minister for territory and municipal services and the office of the then minister for planning and the chief of staff of the then minister for planning that we now have Mrs Dunne actually describing—
Members interjecting—
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .