Page 254 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 15 February 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Mr Speaker, I think you can see that the government is making the investment in Tuggeranong through the master planning process, that it is investigating and focusing on issues around water quality of Lake Tuggeranong and that we are respecting, valuing and investing in areas such as the historic areas around Tharwa.
Ms Bresnan has circulated an amendment to Mr Smyth’s motion. The government will be supporting this amendment. Whilst we do not agree with every element of it, we think in broad terms it addresses the issues and the approach that is being adopted by the government in relation to this matter, so we will be supporting the amendment over Mr Smyth’s original motion.
MR SMYTH (Brindabella) (8.10): I want to speak to the amendment, Mr Speaker. I am not sure what parallel universe Mr Corbell lives in. He has circulated his own amendment, which apparently now is not to be moved at all, so clearly he has no faith in the words that he wrote.
One cannot let the delusional rant over the issue of Tharwa bridge go unaddressed. The Tharwa bridge exists today in the form that it does because the Canberra Liberals, principally through Steve Pratt, stood up to a government that did not care. They just did not care. No matter how you want to rewrite the history, Mr Corbell, I will dig you out the clippings, I will dig you out the debates, I will dig you out the questions that were asked about Tharwa bridge and I will refresh your memory, because you have clearly been asleep for some time.
The original proposition was to abandon the bridge and destroy the vista by building a new bridge. That is what you wanted to do. That is what you intended to do, until you were held to account by this place, particularly by the Canberra Liberals. You laud the magnificent spend of $25 million. The original budget was $10 million to build the new bridge that destroyed the vista and that allowed the existing bridge to deteriorate until it was to be reduced to nothing more than a footbridge.
That is the problem, Mr Corbell—this delusional rewriting of history, that somehow the government had the courage to defend the historic Tharwa bridge. I am going to personally go and doorknock every house in Tharwa and give them a copy of what you have just said; they know it is not true, and you should not mislead the Assembly in the way that you did.
Let me go back through the history of the project.
Mr Corbell: Point of order.
MR SPEAKER: Yes. Mr Smyth, you know you need to withdraw that.
Mr Corbell: Mr Smyth is a serial offender in this regard. If he wants to suggest I have misled the Assembly, he should do so by a substantive motion, rather than simply making the allegation.
MR SMYTH: I have got plenty of time tonight. Would you like a substantive motion?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video