Page 1451 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 17 April 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I would like to take this opportunity to comment on a number of related issues. The first is my disappointment with people who have attempted to use scare tactics yet again on issues such as the land use adjacent to the school site in Cook or the potential demolition of trees. Misrepresenting the facts simply does not do them any credit. There is no intention to demolish any trees. There is no intention on the part of this Government to destroy any scenery. That is a gross misrepresentation. Also, there is not any credit for people, including those opposite, who allegedly espouse the cause of democracy and the rights of government to make decisions but who, at the same time, deliberately set out to frustrate the operations of the Government by petty and legalistic actions. I can advise them that in threatening to run to the courts they will do themselves no good because our actions are correct, as well as being fair.
Finally, let me assure members on a number of points. It is our intention to facilitate public comment on these issues. It is our intention to protect neighbourhood ovals and existing trees on school sites. It is not our intention to force any changes on the church and preschool adjacent to the school site in Cook, but merely to be in a position to respond should those uses cease at any time. This is already the same as applies across a wide range of existing land use policies all over Canberra. They allow for all kinds of possible future uses.
Since we are changing this particular one we are making the same provision there as exists in all kinds of lease policies, some of which were put into place by the Opposition when they were in government. There is no intention whatsoever in the advertisement to suggest that objections from members of the public might not be well received. There was nothing in the advertisement that could be read to construe that. In fact, we welcome all comments on the variations. That is why we have asked for them.
The procedures in operation are fair. They provide an adequate opportunity for public consultation, yet they give a reasonably assured timetable that will enable the Government to make its decisions and get on with governing in the interests of the people of Canberra. Furthermore, it is totally legal. As I said before, plenty of people seem to have understood it precisely and they have had no difficulty with it whatsoever. I just make the reminder that any interested party has until 4 May to let us have their comments on these proposals.
MR WOOD (12.14): On hearing those arguments from the two previous speakers, I am inclined to come down on the side of Mr Moore about the intelligibility of the document we face. Mr Kaine spent some time talking about the logical processes that are required to be gone through in this matter. I do not argue with those. Notices in daily
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .