Belittled, insulted and misrepresentedBy THOMAS MOOREOn Sunday October 31st, 2004 Mr. Daniel Hulme and the University Branch (Launceston) of the ALP submitted a motion to the ALP state conference that belittled, insulted, and misrepresented the Lauderdale and wider South Arm peninsula community in its opposition to the Walker Corp proposal for Ralphs Bay. In their "motion #25", Daniel Hulme and the University Branch (Launceston) of the ALP rejected the idea that the development, a Queensland style canal estate to be built on the site of the Ralphs Bay conservation area, should be stopped. "Motion #25" was justified, in part, by the ludicrous claim that the Walker development would "reduce the vulnerability of waterbirds to domestic animals". Daniel Hulme and the University Branch(Launceston) of the ALP went even further and claimed that community opposition to the Walker Corp proposal was restricted to "some residents of Lauderdale, particularly the Save Ralphs Bay lobby group". On what basis does Daniel Hulme make such claims? Was Daniel or branch officers at the Lauderdale Hall on March 17th, 2004 when, packed wall to wall, over 300 members of the wider community voted overwhelmingly against the Walker plan? Was Daniel or branch officers at the Hobart City Hall on July 15th, 2004 when nearly 1,000 southern Tasmanians gave up their lunch hour to rally for the coast and against the Walker Corp proposal? Other than his embarrassingly misguided letter to the Hobart Mercury on September 17th, 2004, is Daniel aware of the fact that both Liberal and Labor politicians conducted thorough surveys that show 67% - 73% of the community wants Walker sent packing back to NSW where, in fact, such canal estate developments are banned outright by law? (Reference: 19 April 2000, Bob Carr, The Brisbane Institute and NSW State Environmental Planning Policy No 50 - Canal Estate Development) It is astounding that, 219kms removed from Lauderdale, Daniel Hulme and the University Branch (Launceston) of the ALP feels fit to offer such ill-informed and fallacious judgments based on absurd, inaccurate, and unsubstantiated claims. Instead of contributing constructively to the ALP state policy process, Daniel Hulme and the University Branch (Launceston) chose to put forward a shortsighted, poorly researched, and gutless effort, speaking out on an issue they apparently know very little about. According to the ALP and UTAS websites Daniel Hulme is both Tasmanian President of Australian Young Labor and Vice President for Education of the UTAS Student Association. I wonder how many of the young Tasmanians Daniel Hulme apparently represents would question his focus on outspoken support for Australia's 18th richest man and mainland development baron, Lang Walker, (Reference: BRW 2003 "Rich 200") rather than core issues effecting Tasmanian students? As a University of Tasmania student I question whether Daniel Hulme represents the calibre of young leader we need in Tasmania. I am not a member of any political party but I have paid my $5 to support SaveRalphsBay.org. I applaud the Tasmanian ALP members for their overwhelming rejection of Daniel Hulme's "motion #25". It is my continued hope that the Tasmanian Parliamentary Labor Party will follow the clear wishes of its state membership and reject the Walker plan before it enters the formal planning system. I further urge the Lennon ministry to pay heed to the painful lessons already learned on the mainland and reject outright any canal estate development on our priceless Tasmanian coastline.
Thomas Moore
RAPID RESPONSE EMAIL: What do you think? Wednesday, November 3, 2004 |