Page 240 - Week 01 - Thursday, 24 February 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Their views are entitled to very serious consideration, and I believe that the Planning Committee gave them that consideration. That is why the vote was three to two rather than unanimous, as is the case with so many of the Planning Committee's reports on variations.
Madam Speaker, I think there are very good arguments as to why this variation ought to be opposed, and that is why I happily support the motion put forward by my colleague Ms Szuty to disallow it.
MR DE DOMENICO (11.02): Madam Speaker, I suppose that it is about time people on this side of the house expressed their point of view.
Mr Berry: You just have. They are all on that side of the house.
MR DE DOMENICO: If Mr Berry would care to listen, the Liberal Party will not be supporting Ms Szuty's disallowance. Go on reading your other documents, Mr Berry. Do not worry about a thing; things will happen without you. Just keep out of this debate, unless I change my mind.
Mr Wood: He is actually on your side.
MR DE DOMENICO: Good. Madam Speaker, I think we need to get some rationality back into this debate. Let us have a look at what Ms Szuty had to say, first of all. The most important thing that needs to be said is that the Territory Plan - and I have heard Ms Szuty and others say this - is a living, breathing document. So it should be and so it is. The fact that we are debating this issue today shows what a living, breathing document it is. It also shows what a wonderful system we have. No objector or member of the community who wants to object to anything about this development can say that they did not have an opportunity. As Mr Lamont quite rightly said, this went through an exhaustive public consultation process, including public hearings.
The other thing that needs to be said, and Mr Lamont said it quite clearly in the committee, is that the Planning Authority has been told that the manner in which this development was brought to the attention of the committee should not happen again, for the sake of everyone concerned. The developer was not delighted, nor were the residents, nor was the committee, nor was the Government, I believe, nor was the Planning Authority, because we had that other ogre, the NCPA, overlapping all of this. Who will ever forget the public statements made by the NCPA initially about allowing Mr Willemsen to build a third tower? It has to be stated on the record that Mr Willemsen was given the impression by the NCPA initially that he was going to be allowed to build a third tower. After some discussions with people who lived in the first or second towers, who could not bear to have a third tower - - -
Mr Wood: Tower NIMBYs.
MR DE DOMENICO: Tower NIMBYs - the NCPA changed its mind. Mr Moore talks about certainty; but where was the certainty supposedly given to the developer, in this case Mr Willemsen, when he was advised that he could build a third tower? There was no certainty whatsoever. By the way, this block of land was never a public car park; it was owned by Coles-Myer. The fact that cars parked on the land is beside the point; it was never a public car park.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .