Page 1210 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 23 March 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
At one level, the overtly political and subjective nature of comments which both Ms Le Couteur and Mr Coe have made just now is a concern to me—and a comment and a commentary such as that directed at officers of TAMS, members of Parks, Conservation and Lands, that they have conducted a sham consultation. That is deeply offensive to the public servants that conducted that consultation.
It brings to mind this interesting notion which politicians develop when there is a particular issue that they have championed where there has been a consultation and they disagree with the outcome of the consultation in terms of a decision that the government takes. Then, of course, it is a sham consultation, because the government’s position or action does not match their own predetermined attitude in relation to the issue.
The government do have an issue about using potable water to irrigate spaces such as Green Square. As we have explained ad nauseam, we do not irrigate local centres. I find it remarkable and inconsistent—a way that highlights the hypocrisy of Ms Le Couteur and Mr Coe in relation to this—that they pick out one local centre—
Mrs Dunne: It is a group centre.
MR STANHOPE: namely Kingston, and insist that the government irrigate Green Square at Kingston and ignore the other 80 shopping centres in the ACT.
I have asked Ms Le Couteur to explain to me the basis or the attitude which she would adopt if the government suddenly decided to invest in irrigation systems connected to town water, to potable water, and irrigated all 80 shopping centres. Why does Ms Le Couteur champion Kingston but not Scullin? Why does Ms Le Couteur champion Kingston but not Charnwood? Why does Ms Le Couteur champion Kingston but not Lyons? Why does Ms Le Couteur champion Kingston but not Lyneham? Why does Ms Le Couteur champion Kingston shops but not Narrabundah P-2 school? Why does Ms Le Couteur champion a shopping centre and not childcare centres? Why does Ms Le Couteur think it is reasonable to use potable water, eight years into a drought, to irrigate Green Square?
Why does Ms Le Couteur insist on this? Officers of Parks, Conservation and Lands consulted on a number of occasions—convened a public meeting, distributed leaflets, invited everybody that wanted to talk about the issue to talk with them over a period of a year, starting in August 2008, and extending all the way to August 2009, a 12-month period of conversation and consultation, including a public meeting, attended by 26 people, 60 per cent of whom, at the conclusion of the meeting, said that they understood. Sixty per cent of the people who attended the public meeting convened to discuss the proposal to cease irrigating the lawn—because they were replacing the lawn every few years because it simply would not grow in the midst of the drought and with the level of wear and tear—agreed, in the words of the briefing paper to me, that the current situation was unsustainable and they accepted that it had to be replaced.
Then there is this notion of a sham consultation because the government did not agree with it. We did not agree that potable water should be used to water this particular
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video