Page 5789 - Week 18 - Tuesday, 10 December 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Another argument that is advanced is that because they are 25 minutes' walk from facilities - that is debatable - it is difficult to comprehend the decision to locate units in this area. That argument applies to any house, any residence, anywhere. If it is 25 minutes' walk from facilities, according to this argument, we should not be building any residential units there at all. Even in the case of those that are not Housing Trust ones, there are going to be some people moving in who do not have a motor car, or, if they have, they have only one which dad will drive to work, and mum will have to walk down to the shops with the kids in the pram. But that is no greater argument against putting Housing Trust people there than it is against putting any units there.
Mr Jensen: They have an option. They have a choice.
MR KAINE: Not everybody has a choice. That is a false argument. There are some on the lower end of the income scale who have to buy where they can afford it, and that is usually on the outskirts of town and it is most likely right next door to these units because these are, by Mr Jensen's argument, right on the outskirts of town. So, I am not impressed with his argument.
There are a couple of points made in this letter for which I have some sympathy, and I am waiting for the Minister to deal with them. One has to do with the conflicting information that appears to have been provided to the Executive. I assume that the members of the Executive are reasonable people and that they would have noted that and clarified the matter before they made a decision.
The other point is one which very often is brought up in these cases, and that is that the community voice was not heard. It is the same complaint that was made in connection with Forrest bowling club. I accept that there is a bureaucracy and to the person out there in the street it can sometimes appear that their voice is not being listened to and it is not being heard. That is not always the case. But I would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say in connection with that particular criticism. I am afraid, Mr Speaker, that Mr Jensen's attempt to forcefully put the arguments that he tried to put was not very convincing to me and I do not accept them as arguments for opposing this particular development.
MR WOOD (Minister for Education and the Arts and Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning) (4.16): Mr Speaker, I think this motion is somewhat an overreaction to the events; but let me say that I think it is a good debate because, if we put it into the context of the things that Mr Jensen said when he was debating the planning legislation last week, and again today on a previous motion, it shows that everything comes back to this Assembly. Do not forget, Mr Jensen, that we have written into that planning legislation the deemed disallowance provisions.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .