Page 4724 - Week 15 - Thursday, 21 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
openness and review. It does not behove the Labor Party, particularly those who supported the Rally in the early days, including people like Charles McDonald who came to the big rally and spoke with us on 13 November about the need for openness and review rights.
We are kicking off early in this debate. The question is: Does the Labor Party want to stick to what it said years back? There was a developer push in the Labor Party. We have never seen any openness from them. But, of course, it depends upon Mr Wood, the current Minister. I believe that he will show in tonight's debate that he is open, that he can influence his caucus and that he can explain to them later why he has supported this amendment.
Mr Stefaniak is much freer than those in the Labor caucus. The Liberal Party can vote basically any way they like these days. Naturally, we are hoping for some degree of flexibility tonight from the Liberal Party on all of these matters, as they have shown on many other matters in the chamber. At least Mr Stefaniak is now listening.
Mr Stefaniak: Yes, I am listening.
MR COLLAERY: I will sum up briefly by saying that the filter provided by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal is proven; it is established in this country. When people want to conduct small business in their neighbourhoods, we should allow the Liberal ethic behind the rights of small business - I am down on my knees, Mr Speaker - to flow through in the vote on this. We should ensure that we do not overcircumscribe the rights of people to conduct controlled activities; yet at the same time give the community the scope to comment when they wish to.
MR MOORE (8.45): I spoke briefly at the introduction of this amendment in the hope that nobody would notice what I was doing and that we would have this through in no time at all. But it would appear that Mr Wood noted what I was trying to achieve. No doubt his good advisers there also made it clear to him, as is right and proper.
What we are dealing with is not a very simple matter; it goes to the very heart of planning and to the very heart of conflict in our society. It goes back to the meetings that Mr Collaery spoke of, to 1987 or maybe a bit earlier. It goes back to those meetings. It is about saying to residents of this city that they can know what is going on and that they can have some say in what is going on.
Let me give you an example by referring to the draft Territory Plan, Mr Speaker. Look at the residential PLUZ - predominant land use zone. Everybody who goes out and gets this particular document should read it very thoroughly and then make cross-references. For example, what is meant by "apartment"? By starting at page 63 and then flicking back
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .