Page 5879 - Week 18 - Wednesday, 11 December 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Jensen: I did make my decision. I believe that it was right.
MR MOORE: Well, as it so happened, I think you are wrong. Even though you are going to lose a vote or two, you should say that we have a particular reason for looking at the development, in the case yesterday, at Theodore, a development which would provide a series of homes through the Housing Trust for people who might well otherwise not have homes. I think that that objection was as ill thought through as indeed is this objection.
There have been a series of problems associated with this development, but in the process those have been handled appropriately. If we have a situation where people are going to expect that every single variation to the Territory Plan is going to be handled as an objection in order to catch out a few developers, or as if it is always the developers who are the baddies, then there is no way that we can proceed. In fact, if that were the case, we would not have the wonderful and beautiful city that we have today. There is a particular and important role for investors to play and for developers to play and they have to feel that they have some confidence. In fact, this development will certainly add to that kind of confidence.
I think it is important that the business community understands that the people who have a chance of being elected next time will have a much more positive attitude than that put forward by the Rally as far as these sorts of variations go. It is time they focused on the big picture and stopped fiddling at the edges.
MR COLLAERY (11.32): Mr Speaker, unlike the Liberal leader and Mr Moore, I want to concentrate on the central issue about this development. The central issue is as accepted by the Planning Authority in its response to the submissions relating to parking. I will read the response into the record:
The principal parking issues arising from the proposed expansion of the existing cinema are the need to accommodate the additional parking demand generated by the cinema and the need to accommodate the displaced parking capacity of Griffith Section 96 Block 1.
I really hope members will listen to this. The central issue about this proposal is the provision of parking space.
I was saddened, more than angry, to hear Mr Moore, because he has been a great believer in traffic management studies being released with the draft variation proposals. No traffic engineering or management study was released with this. That has been an article of faith with all of us, and Mr Moore, of course. Many informed people will read this transcript and I am very sorry to see Mr Moore moving
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .