Page 4182 - Week 14 - Thursday, 25 October 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR JENSEN: I cannot think of the exact date, Mr Moore, but it was prior to the discussions on the decision. I think it may have been a day or two prior to debate on this matter by the Government members.
Mr Moore: You had that before you closed schools, before you participated in the debate, yes.
MR JENSEN: As I indicated, Mr Moore, if you were correctly listening, I had access to the document. It was provided to me well before any final decision was taken in relation to schools. Right? Got it?
Mr Moore: Yes, I understand your embarrassment.
MR JENSEN: Mr Wood also suggested that we ignored planning matters during the discussions. Let me assure him that this was clearly not the case. It was unfortunate that when he referred to this document he chose to suggest that the Government did not follow all the recommendations that were in this document. There were some parts of this document with which he agreed but there were others with which he disagreed. If it is okay for Mr Wood to agree with some parts of the document but not others, what is wrong with the Government considering some parts of the document but not others? There is a double standard there, I suggest. Let us get it right.
During Mr Wood's contribution to the debate he went on to suggest that the document to which he referred did not include any comment in relation to matters other than schools. It does, because on page 4 there is reference to a social index which looks at a number of issues in relation to the social form of a particular community. It considers things like the number of cars belonging to a family in a particular suburb, the households with dependent children and the percentage of housing stock in a particular suburb. All those items were included in that matter. That is what the Hansard says. So, to say that is clearly incorrect because that is included in this document, and there is some consideration of that.
There is another matter which is one of the key issues. I think I should read it into the record. Unfortunately, when people pick up these sorts of documents they tend to be a bit selective in what they read. I think people should read on. Key issue No. 3 says:
From a planning perspective it is essential to assess the proposals in terms of their immediate impact on safety, access, social interaction and amenity. It is also critical to consider the longer term requirements that derive from urban growth of the city. This requires identifying those schools that should be retained to meet the longer term needs for safe, accessible school provision.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .