Page 459 - Week 02 - Tuesday, 8 March 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
But there is an example closer to home. We only have to go back to the debate about the Gungahlin Drive extension to see the extent of the hypocrisy of the Greens and the Labor Party on this issue: “Greens Senator Bob Brown has vowed”—in relation to Gungahlin Drive—“to move in the Senate to disallow any change to the national capital plan that allows the eastern route for Gungahlin Drive to continue.” He is in favour of territory rights unless we want to build a road where he does not want it to go. If there is a road where he does not want it to go, they can be overridden at will.
Maybe that is why he does not want to talk about the broader issues. The broader issues bring it into stark focus. In fact, maybe Bob Brown still wants to veto our next road. There is an acute sense of embarrassment for the Greens on this issue because not only did Bob Brown demonstrate his hypocrisy, but what was it about? It was about denying the people of Gungahlin a road.
If it was up to the Greens and their interference from the federal parliament, the people of Gungahlin would still be waiting. Of course, they are still waiting for their second lane, but they would still be waiting for a road if it was up to the likes of Bob Brown. Of course, we know Meredith Hunter’s views on the issue. She wishes it had not been built. Kerrie Tucker would not have had it built and Bob Brown thought it was so serious that the federal parliament should intervene in the ACT’s ability to determine where it puts its roads and how it services the people of its growing suburbs. What rank hypocrisy!
We should not just pick on Senator Brown. We know that Senator Lundy, on behalf of the Labor Party, has shown a fair degree of hypocrisy about this as well. It must be said that she has changed her views on this. She has gone back and forth. It does appear to depend who is in government at an ACT level as to how much she respects the mandate.
Let us have a look at August 2001. The Liberal Party was in government in the ACT. We have here: “Labor Senator Kate Lundy told the Canberra Times yesterday that the matter should not be decided by federal parliament but, if it were, Labor would join the Greens and the Democrats in blocking the eastern route.” So when it was a Liberal government, the Labor Party would block the eastern route. But some time later, in 2003, that was no longer the case—“We should let the road go through.” Who was in government then? The Labor Party was in government. So it appears that for the Labor Party and the Greens it very much depends on who is in government, who is in power, and what the particular issue is.
That brings us back to our point, Mr Speaker. The government—the Labor Party and the Greens—have made it about these contentious issues. They do not want to have a broad discussion because the broad discussion might stop the Greens in future from interfering in planning decisions here in the ACT. Let us have a broader discussion. Let us put aside the hypocrisy of the Greens and the hypocrisy of the Labor Party. Let us as an Assembly say, “We will talk to the community. We want a broad review and reform of the self-government act.”
That is what our amendment says. Which part of that do the Labor Party and the Greens oppose? Is it the part that says we should talk to the community about it—is
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video