Page 1302 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 16 April 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
prepared, identifying the details of the existing mature trees, and that those management plans are discussed with the community when and if development is proposed to take place on those sites in the future.
That, Mr Speaker, leads me to a very important point. The draft variation to the Territory Plan proposals that have been brought before us and put before the community clearly say, in every case, that the status quo could well remain. There is no bar to the status quo remaining. That in fact is one of the reasons why that policy is written. That is a little bit contrary, one would suggest, to the comments that were made in the draft variation proposals for public comment issued by the then Follett Labor Government in July 1989. It was quite clear then that there was no suggestion that the existing uses might be retained - particularly in relation to Fisher, the one that I particularly refer to.
I also recall, Mr Speaker, at that time, a member of Ms Follett's staff coming into my office - I understand that he went to the offices of other members of this Assembly also - and suggesting in relation to the other issue that Mr Wood raised - that is, the issue of public open space and provision of public open space - presumably on instructions from Ms Follett, that the open space provisions in this green document were more than adequate for the community; that in fact they were in excess. He came to me to make very clear that that was the view.
If one were to look at all the draft variations for public comment produced by the current planning authority in this particular matter one would see a similar table. Almost exactly the same wording is used. In fact, Mr Speaker, if one were to go through this document and have a look at it, one would see that the wording is very similar because it is a planning document. It talks about the issues in planning terms. Quite frankly, it is sheer hypocrisy on the part of those opposite to suggest that what we are doing here is something different or something strange, or that it is being done in a hurry. Unfortunately, as we all know, Mr Speaker, it took the Alliance Government to make the decisions in relation to the schools that were closed by the Federal Labor Government.
Let me now move on to the comments in relation to the loss of green space. Neither that concern nor the speed suggestion, which I have already addressed, has much validity. I would suggest, Mr Speaker, that, as always, they are seeking to make cheap political points on this issue. We all know very well that any Labor government from this group opposite will do exactly what they did last time; they will not reopen one school, despite the comments and promises made by Mr Wood today.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .