Page 4447 - Week 15 - Tuesday, 19 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
What gets built on the site, and for what amount - whether it be 26 townhouses, whether it be 10, 15 or 20 - is not for me or our committee to decide. That decision will be made on other grounds. The proposed indoor bowling green will be very good. A new building will offer better conditions than exist there now. It will probably encourage a lot more residents of the area to play bowls.
I can see no reason not to commend this report to the Assembly. I would like to thank the members on the committee I served with; also the secretariat for the fine and hard work they did on the report - work that had to be done within a reasonably short time. I thank them all. I thank the chairman and Mr Jensen. Although Mr Jensen and I may not agree, I think it was a very good exercise, and it was done with lots of care.
MR MOORE (9.04): Mr Speaker, I shall take a few minutes to comment on this report as well. It is not a particularly lengthy report, and I have been able to scan it to a sufficient extent to realise, for example, that in Mr Jensen's dissenting comments he did in fact refer to Griffith on three occasions at least, when I am sure he actually means Forrest. The comments that we have just heard from Mrs Grassby are some of the lightest weight comments I have heard in this Assembly. The notion that in some way the committee might act illegally, or beyond the law, by looking at variations is an absolute nonsense, if ever there was one.
The limitations that the committee put upon itself are the committee's prerogative. It is quite appropriate for them to do that. However, the scope of the inquiry limited the range of what they could have done and, I believe, what they should have done. The committee should not have reviewed just whether or not the process was followed, but whether or not there was enough merit in the proposed development. The Assembly, after all, has the right to decide whether or not a proposal should go ahead. The Assembly as a whole has that right. The Assembly committee, of course, is a part of that decision making process. The committee can recommend to the Assembly whether or not it should proceed.
The committee ought not to work just on a very limited and narrow scope. In this respect I certainly agree with Mr Jensen when he draws attention to the fact that the scope of the inquiry was simply to consider whether due process had been followed. What we get from this report is really a report on due process. The due process was followed. What the Assembly will have to consider when this matter comes up for debate - and I have given notice that I shall move for disallowance of the proposed variations to the Territory Plan and Mr Jensen also has given notice of a motion of disallowance - is whether or not the proposed development should go ahead.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .