Page 768 - Week 03 - Thursday, 22 March 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
However, I know that they are embarrassed by Bernard's actions on many occasions and they are particularly - - -
MR SPEAKER: Order! Mr Collaery, not Bernard, please.
MR WHALAN: I am sorry - Mr Collaery. They have been embarrassed by the Attorney-General's behaviour in the past and no doubt they will be in the future. But on this occasion they have closed ranks around him in a protective manner and the pack will be loyal. But that does not get away from the fact that the community must understand the circumstances of the motion which is before us today.
There is no point in throwing up a smokescreen by saying that Rosemary Follett has claimed that $250,000 will be spent on the Assembly; it is no good throwing up a smokescreen by saying that Ellnor Grassby has acted immorally or irresponsibly in properly alerting the people of the Northbourne Flats to the threat that they were exposed to. As for the future employment of the staff of the Canberra Tourist Bureau, I can tell members that the only reassurance that they have had about their jobs is one from Mr Duby. What is that worth?
The conclusion that the people in the flats came to when they expressed their concerns to Ellnor Grassby was justified because of the statements which were made by the Alliance Government. I have here the Alliance Government policy - your policy, Mr Speaker, the one you signed - which says:
We will examine the gradual redevelopment or relocation and improvement of some older public housing, for example, Northbourne Avenue Flats.
Mr Jensen: On a point of order, Mr Speaker, Mr Whalan is saying that document is signed, when in fact it is not.
MR WHALAN: Are you saying that it has got no credibility?
Mr Jensen: Mr Whalan indicated that the document was signed by the Speaker - - -
MR SPEAKER: Order! You are debating the issue.
MR WHALAN: I withdraw the imputation. In his speech, which was an important point in his contribution here, Mr Jensen referred to his press release of 8 March when he spoke about the processes that would be involved in a change of lease purpose clause; in other words, a change of use. I would like members to contrast that with Bernard Collaery's statement in the Canberra Times of 27 February, because there is a contradiction, an important fundamental difference. Bernard said that it was possible that sections of the flats would be demolished and new flats built. That is the important difference. You would not need a change of land use to achieve that objective and he understands that. There would be no need for a change of
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .