Page 1741 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 5 May 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that Ms Le Couteur’s amended amendment be agreed to. Mr Coe, are you speaking to the amendment and closing the debate?
MR COE (Ginninderra) (11.57): I can do so, Madam Deputy Speaker, if that is the will. The opposition is not really happy with the amendment that the Greens are proposing. When you actually go through it, it lacks meat. Having listened to their speeches, I fail to see what part of my motion they actually disagree with. Do you not want the government to write to members to inform us? Do you not think Dunlop residents have been waiting too long? Do you not want to know when construction of the shops will commence? Do you not want to know when trading will commence? Do you not want to know how many parking spaces there will be? Do you not want to know about the floor space, or whether there will be any room for community use? Do you not want to know about community facilities? Do you not want to know what other community facilities are like, such as a childcare facility? I do not understand. They spoke about each of these and said how important it was to get it right. Well, do you want to know or not?
Then we heard from Ms Le Couteur and Mr Barr. What is it that we actually want the government to do with regard to facilitation? I find it very hard to believe that this knockout punch that Ms Le Couteur had would be contradicted by her own party leader who said, “I urge the government to work with the owner of the land to deliver shops.” How does that differ from the point that she took fault with—“work with the owner of the land to facilitate the construction of the shops as quickly as possible”?
Ms Le Couteur said that (2)(b) was a gutless clause and that it was worthless. Ms Hunter said pretty much the same thing. She said, “I urge the government to work with the owner of the land to deliver shops.” Instead, I wrote, “Work with the owner of the land to facilitate the construction of the shops.” The knockout blow that Ms Le Couteur had seems to be contradicted by her own party leader. I am led to believe that that is actually a regular occurrence in their party room. I am led to believe that there are some interesting rifts in that party room and one that I am sure will play out as we get closer to the election.
Ms Le Couteur’s amendment really does lack grunt. This amendment to my motion is yet another form of neglect for the people of Dunlop. Do they not think the people of Dunlop should know sooner rather than at the end of 2010? Do they not think that it would be reasonable for the government to provide this information by next week, given they have 17,000 full-time public servants that might be able to put this together very easily? I find it very hard to believe that the motion that we have put forward could not be fulfilled very easily by ACTPLA.
It is extremely disappointing that the Greens and the Labor Party should do this disservice to the people of Dunlop. That is after bashing the suburb and saying that it was not the best place to live, that it really was a second-rate suburb. I do not think that. I think Dunlop is a great suburb. I support Mrs Dunne’s comments that it is a lovely suburb and that we should not be bashing the suburb.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video