Page 4071 - Week 15 - Thursday, 17 December 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR WOOD (Minister for Education and Training, Minister for the Arts and Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning) (11.20): Madam Speaker, I thank the three members who have spoken for their contributions. I think they acknowledge the position. I agree that Ms Szuty has the right - indeed, I would say that she has the responsibility - to speak out for people in her region. I pick up the point that Mr Moore made just a moment ago - that we are elected representatives of the community and where we consider it appropriate it is our responsibility to raise issues on their behalf. On those grounds I welcome the contribution made here today by Ms Szuty.
It is also important to note that ultimately it is this Assembly that makes the decision. Mr Kaine quite correctly used the words that I would use - "community interest". Mr Moore did the same. Ultimately, sitting around our tables in this chamber, we have to decide what is best for the whole community, bearing in mind always the interests of particular groups and particular people, even one person. We must not override anybody in doing that. Mr Moore used the term "override". I would not use the expression "override small group interest". I think there are better ways of expressing that. We cannot accept everything that comes up. Community consultation does not mean that we have to say yes to every point of view expressed by those we talk to. Indeed, you simply could not, because you would have no coherent plan.
The speech of Ms Szuty was really an endorsement of the process. She raised the issues that were elaborated in the EIS and my evaluation of that. She queried certain aspects, but I do not believe that she revealed any particular holes. Wherever you go, whatever you do, you are going to change something and there will be an impact. One of our purposes is to reduce that impact to the barest minimum.
I will go through some of the points Ms Szuty raised. I think each point was basically a confirmation of the process. Nothing particularly new has emerged in this debate, and I do not think it could, after such an exhaustive survey over two years. The issues raised today have been raised before. For example, the waterlogging of lower lying ground was raised. Such areas will not be built on. That is what we say, and that is it. Ms Szuty acknowledged that my evaluation report, where necessary, corrected data that had been provided earlier. She referred to the fire hazard. We are proceeding on that front. I suppose that every time you move something the boundary, in this case the fire hazard, moves with it. The Planning Authority has already discussed this matter with the rural fire services. There will be adequate access and there will be firebreaks. The facility to check on potential fires has been provided for. So, that matter is covered.
The matter of mitigation works was well covered in my evaluation. It was raised again by Ms Szuty. Measures have been put into place to ensure that every possible avenue is covered. The question of primary schools was one of Ms Szuty's main points. I have two legs into this, I suppose, as Planning Minister and as Education Minister. There are three schools in that area - Charnwood, Fraser and Macgregor. We have looked at the existing populations and the age structure in those areas. On all the data we present, as this area develops we can
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .