Page 839 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 18 March 2015

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video


something this minister cannot contemplate and has amended the hell out of. We cannot have words of criticism pass the eyes of the Minister for Planning and the other ministers whose responsibilities relate to Oaks Estate. But the game is up. You can fool some of the people some of the time but you cannot do it forever and, members of this government, the electorate is telling us that they are over your meaningless rhetoric and your do-nothing approach to issue resolution.

This government has a single focus at the minute—light rail—and anything else can be damned. As we have seen yet again today, the government have amended our motion to remove anything suggesting action and comment. They do not accept that Oaks Estate is neglected. They do not accept there is serious social disadvantage. Mr Barr talked about cutting the grass and did everything but address the issues that the community brought up with him and with Mr Gentleman just two days ago. Mr Gentleman has a very short memory or attention span, or he just does not care or does not understand what the community told him two days ago.

They do not accept that footpaths are needed. They do not accept that lighting is needed and that increased police patrols would be useful, and they have clearly no intention of providing the sort of bus service that the community is asking for. Perhaps Oaks Estate residents should start lobbying for extensions of light rail. The economic case for it is about as robust as it is for Gungahlin, and that at least will get the government’s attention.

Let there be no mistake, the government’s amendment clearly says, “We plan to do as we have always done, and that is nothing. We will hide behind a planning process because that will absolutely ensure that we do nothing. We have done nothing for 15 years. Why should we change now?” The Oaks Estate association should be sceptical as to how much the planning minister listened to them the other day. Clearly if he did listen he has no intention of responding to their concerns. He has his marching orders, just like Mr Rattenbury has, and neither of them dares stray from the script provided for them.

I thank my colleagues on this side of the chamber for their words in support of this motion and their support for the residents of Oaks Estate. I want to thank those from the Oaks Estate community and other members of the community here for showing their support for Oaks Estate and seeing firsthand what happens when ministers have to defend their do-nothing approach.

Oaks Estate has, for far too long, had a bad rap. People living there want and deserve better, but we know that this government will not deliver that reform. It is unlikely that this government will do any more than offer another review or drag out the current one until after the next election. As I said, even the planning minister who met with the residents association the other day offered nothing, probably noted little and plans to do no more than his predecessors.

Minister Rattenbury continues to disappoint but not surprise. I am sure those on this side of the chamber could write any speech for him because it always starts out with some version of “I feel your pain” but manages to swing around to always supporting the government and sticking with the government line. I would like to know which of


Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video