Page 4534 - Week 15 - Wednesday, 20 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
what your amendment proposes would impose such physical constraints on the block that no redevelopment of any kind could occur - no redevelopment in the interests of the bowling club and no redevelopment in the interests of the community.
You would prefer to see this site sit there and disintegrate, and become nothing but an eyesore, in preference to seeing somebody doing something about trying to redevelop it, to maintain the amenity of the club and to maintain the amenity of the area for the residents who live there. So, it was a nice try, but it does not achieve any useful objective whatsoever. If your political speech was intended to prevent me from taking the course of action that I indicated that I would take because I might succumb to some threat of losing a couple of votes in Forrest over the issue, you are quite wrong. This is a much broader issue than just Forrest.
Some people have made much of the fact that not all of the members of the bowling club live in Forrest. I would make the point that very few of the 700 members of the tennis club live in Forrest either, yet that has been put forward as a profound argument as to why we should somehow take the interests of the tennis club into account over and above the interests of the bowling club. The argument in respect of each of the clubs is the same if residence in Forrest is the criterion that is to be adopted.
I would have thought that if Mr Collaery had anything other than a political point to make he would have looked at this before the disallowance motion was put on the table; he would not have dropped it on the table in the middle of the debate in the hope of making the Liberal members of the Assembly change their view on some spurious basis. If he were at all serious about this, the original disallowance motion would have foreseen that some sensible compromise was possible, and the disallowance motion would have put forward that sensible compromise, not this black issue as opposed to the white issue that was on the table beforehand. Nothing is ever black or white, and the Residents Rally ought to be aware of that, if anybody is.
I am afraid that I am opposed to his amendment because it does nothing. It does nothing for the opponents of the development proposal; it does nothing for the proponents of the development proposal. It does nothing for anybody and therefore is not a serious proposition. I suggest that Mr Collaery knew that it was not a serious proposition when he put it on the table.
MR JENSEN (12.13), in reply: I want to pick up a couple of points raised by Mr Kaine in his closing remarks. He also made these remarks in his earlier speech. There is a suggestion and a concern that if we pass this it basically means that nothing can be done with the building until Mr Wood's department conducts an investigation, et cetera.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .