Page 5455 - Week 17 - Tuesday, 3 December 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
planning issues and have provided much strength to the planning of this city. We are going to ensure that they will read that this Labor Government has once again gone back on its testament that it gave us, and its commitment on 21 June, and has joined those conservative reactionary forces.
Day by day we can only stand amazed as the Labor Party continues to fall under the sway of those backburner, tag-along instincts of a party that has lost all connection with what the community wants. I can tell you, through you, Mr Speaker, what the people want at the polls. They want a government - - -
Mr Wood: You do not want this legislation through; you are beginning to filibuster.
MR COLLAERY: You have one last chance. The Labor Party have one last chance to support a planning advisory committee to support the issue.
Mr Wood is one of the best debaters in this house. He is very shrewd and he will sway many juries. But, you see, we are not the average jury, as Mr Wood knows. We were not taken in by Mr Wood's reference to the early consultation comments - that the community groups were wary of a 15-person advisory committee that they perceived at the time would exclude them - and the refined concepts following the consultation for there to be a professional planning advisory committee to give support to the authority.
Mr Wood used one premise to argue another. It is a very shrewd device. It works well in front of a jury. I say to Mr Wood, through you, Mr Speaker: When people read this transcript - indeed, we will ensure that they do - you will not sway them. You have gone along with a closed door arrangement to keep them.
Mr Wood: This is a filibuster.
MR COLLAERY: Mr Wood, by his interjections, is desperately anxious to get this Bill through. We should not be churlish about the extra few minutes when considering the planning of this capital city through the twenty-first century, may I suggest to Mr Wood.
Finally, I want to defend my colleague Mr Jensen. He was referred to as being negligent, in the party sense, in bringing forward all these amendments. Mr Jensen is working on these issues, here or at his home, day and night.
Mr Wood: Aren't we all.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .