Page 1211 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 23 March 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
lawn. We decided to replace it with drought-hardy plants. Green Square is now greener. The work is now concluded, and Green Square today is greener than it has been at any time in the last 10 years—with drought-resistant, drought-hardy plants that do not require irrigation. It is the greenest it has been for 10 years.
Let me go to this notion of consultation. The government has just consulted on a new southern cemetery and a crematorium. There was a rigorous, extensive, qualitative and quantitative survey and consultation process, which thousands of people responded to—thousands, not 26. Eighty-three per cent of people—83 per cent plus—support a new cemetery and, interestingly, 83 per cent want a crematorium on the site.
But Ms Le Couteur does not. Ms Le Couteur does not believe that there should be a crematorium, or a second crematorium, at the site of the new southern cemetery. She does not agree. She disagrees with what 83 per cent of the people of Canberra think and want. Ms Le Couteur thinks they should all actually endure natural burials: they should be buried in cardboard boxes, standing up. That is what Ms Le Couteur expects the people of Canberra to accept in relation to their burial choices. She does not want a crematorium.
Ms Le Couteur, you ignore that consultation; you ignore the fact that 83 per cent of the entire Canberra community wants a crematorium. You do not. So it was a sham consultation, was it—just because you did not agree? You have a position. You have a policy position; you have a belief in relation to a crematorium: you do not want one. But 83 per cent of the people of Canberra do, Ms Le Couteur. Why didn’t you back them? Do you think that consultation was sham? Was that a sham consultation just because you disagreed with it?
It was not a sham consultation. That is unfair. It is unfair to those officers that conducted it. It was an extensive consultation over the course of a year. At the end of the day, a position which the department and the government had adopted, that we would not use potable water in the midst of a drought to irrigate a square, was the policy position that we took. But because we did not agree with a number of people who wanted us to invest in infrastructure, to invest in water, to meet an annual water bill and to use potable water, you accuse us of not being honest in our consultations. We were honest and up-front at all times. We said that we will not support it at public expense. What we did say was: “If you want to invest in the infrastructure, if you want to pay for the water, you can.” They all declined that offer.
That is unlike a current experience at Ainslie shops. The government also had a particular position in relation to that upgrade. We said to the major owner of Ainslie: “Look, we are not prepared to invest in this. If you want this particular feature then you pay for it.” At Ainslie, the owner of the IGA is doing precisely that, unlike Green Square. They said: “No, no; we are not prepared to pay for potable water. We are not prepared to pay for the irrigation system.” But at Ainslie they are. They wanted something, so they are doing it—as the retailers in the city are. They are now completely refurbishing the park in West Row at their own expense. They are making their decisions in relation to that park.
I will go to just one other point. Ms Le Couteur commenced her commentary in relation to transport. There are a couple of recommendations, I understand, in relation
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video