Page 3014 - Week 08 - Thursday, 25 June 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR SMYTH: Confect? Go and talk to Tharwa residents about this. They know what you said. They heard what you said. The problem is that this is not a government that believes in being open, honest or accountable in its negotiations with the community. You only have to look at the major artwork that was proposed and the artists who were led on by the Chief Minister, who is minister for arts, in the preparation of their designs. Mrs Dunne has been following this issue and she knows well about it. We have spoken to the artists and they believe that the negotiations were neither open, nor honest, nor accountable, because they were led to believe that this work would proceed—and it was dropped like a hot potato. It was dropped like a political hot potato because the Chief Minister did not like the flak he was getting for his lack of openness, honesty and accountability with the community.
It goes on into business—the sale of the old QEII site that was linked to the sale of a block of land in Gungahlin yet ended up with a Sydney firm buying a block that nobody else knew about, in effect—the most Byzantine sort of route. Then Epicentre: one buyer knew what he was bidding on but nobody else knew what he was bidding on and, again, the losers in this case were the people of the ACT, who did not get the full value for the block of land that they should have.
There are so many examples where this government have refused to be open, to be honest or to be accountable in their negotiations with the ACT community that one could talk, I suspect, for the rest of the day, and probably for the rest of tomorrow, on it. But the critical one, the one that has stung the community most and in its own way has done the government the most damage, is their refusal to release the functional review into the ACT by Mr Costello. People had an expectation that, if this was the reforming document, if this was the document that was the basis for the reforms that would lead us forward, they would be able to critique that document. And we know from the select summary that appeared in the budget box that year that in most cases the premise put forward was incorrect and was debunked by the community, based on the limited information the government released.
The question is: what were they hiding? Were they open, were they honest, were they accountable in their negotiations with the community? The answer is simply no. They know they are wrong. They are constantly wrong and they are often caught when they are wrong.
MADAM ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ms Le Couteur): The discussion is concluded.
MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra), by leave: Madam Assistant Speaker, in a desire to be entirely honest and open, I need to correct the record. In debate on the matter of public importance I said that I remembered clearly when Mr Hargreaves made the statement about “we didn’t consult you because we knew what you were going to say”. I said I remembered him clearly saying it here. In fact, when I reflected upon that, he did not say it here. What I clearly remember was Mr Pratt—a fond memory—repeating it in the chamber the weekend after Mr Hargreaves said it at a meeting at the Griffith library. I just need to correct the record.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .