Page 5585 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 17 November 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I do not believe it was intended for this. Certainly when the debates were had, I do not believe anybody thought that was the intention either. I think it goes to the heart of the matter that the government has not been able to sustain land supply in this city and this was a quick way of doing it, a quick and dirty job. Just bung some more houses onto each of these blocks, nobody will notice and we will just move on. And that is the problem.
Ms Le Couteur said, “Never let the truth get in the way of the story.” She said, “We need to make sure that we can do these things.” To that we would simply say, “Plan properly from the start. If you get it right at the start you can avoid these issues.” That is the whole purpose. That is why we have a planning department.
But the question is: is the planning department in charge of this whole issue? That is the problem. Who is in charge? It is like that old Abbott and Costello gag, “Who’s on first?” The planning debacle that is this government is just like “who’s on first?” Nobody knows who’s on first because I think it changes from day to day. We are not sure. Nobody is sure.
The second point is: what happens to the ovals? It is worth reading this into the record. I note everything that Mr Barr said. They are good words. They are glib words in many cases: “We have got this. We have got open space. We might have this. We might have that.” What you will not have in two suburbs of 44,000 homes is a formal playing field. There is pressure—
Mr Barr: Yes, you will, and as big as the Charnwood and Chisholm ones. That is what I said. Again you did not listen.
MR SMYTH: How many ovals will there be?
Mr Barr: One in each, yes.
MR SMYTH: That is not what this variation says. You should read your variation then. You should read what it says. On page 5 of 24 of your variation, the third dot point says:
Amend open space provisions to remove requirements for a standalone playing field. Minor changes to open space provisions respond to advice from Sport and Recreation Services (within the Department of Territory and Municipal Services) that a landscaped open space be provided for local recreation use in Casey rather than a neighbourhood oval or playing field.
But now the minister is saying there is an oval. The variation says there is not an oval. The minister is saying there is an oval. Who knows? It just confirms the point. Who is in charge and does anybody in this government actually know what is happening? Read the variation.
Mr Barr: I outlined what will be—
MR SMYTH: No, you said “likely”. You used the word “likely”. The minister used the word “likely”. Indeed, for Crace, if you go to section G on page 5 of 24, the third dot point says,
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video