Page 2163 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 6 June 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
who bring a carload in - and a positive thing that is, too - rather than coming in as single occupants. That is a positive thing and I make that quite clear. I have no doubt that that can be moved over. I am not being so pedantic as that.
I would like to draw this to the Government's attention. I have not lambasted this. What I have done is said that there are specific concerns in the community about what the Government is doing. Nobody would debate that, if we have found a way to provide a new community centre for people, then it could be of benefit, but we will have to balance that benefit with the fact that they already have a community centre and perhaps that money could be better spent. Perhaps that money could be given a better priority in retaining schools. Perhaps that money could be better spent in a series of other ways. It is no good just to say, "Well, that comes out of my budget", as Mr Collaery indicated before.
It could well be that, if Mr Collaery has that extra money to come out of his budget, then the whole Government's priorities are up the pole and we should be cutting some more money and moving that money to a different budget. I am not suggesting that we need to cut community services. I am suggesting that the Government needs to look at its own priorities, and those priorities do not start at economics; those priorities start at social goals and social concerns. This is what this Government has failed to do. That is what makes this Government totally inadequate. That is their major failure. With this particular issue, it is also a significant failure for them not to have at least dealt with why they are moving away from the Metropolitan Policy Plan; why they are moving away from the 1989 Civic Centre Policy Plan; why they are inconsistent; why this proposal is inconsistent.
Mr Jensen: On what basis do you say that? It is rubbish.
MR MOORE: Mr Jensen, I carefully explained to you that it is inconsistent. Were you not listening? I will explain it again, since I now have a minute. The reason it is inconsistent with the plan is that the area set aside is on 10B which is set aside for community and educational purposes and which you are proposing to redevelop. The part where you are going to put the centre is set aside for parking. That is quite clearly set out in the coloured map preceding page 64 of the centre policy plan.
MR COLLAERY (Minister for Housing and Community Services) (12.14): Mr Speaker, I move the following amendment:
That all words after "ACT" be omitted and the following words substituted: "deplores the failure of the Follett/Whalan Government to take any steps to protect the tenants of the Griffin Centre; deplores the divisive and incorrect statements of Mr Berry in introducing a motion
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .