Page 563 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 14 March 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
something; I would even be inclined to give leave for him to clarify it. There is a spectacular amount of scuttlebutt in the community about the future of Flynn primary school. It has been put to me and to others that there is almost a done deal to sell Flynn primary school for units. If that is not the case, I want the minister to rule it out today, on the record.
This is an extraordinarily contentious issue. Every school that has been blighted by school closure is very concerned and covetous and wants to maintain the school infrastructure in their community. The task ahead for the Property Group is a very difficult one, and we should not underestimate it. There are a whole lot of things that need to be done. Every community group that I deal with says, “What do you reckon they are going to do with our block of land, where our schools are? Do you reckon it is going to be sold for units?” Every school group thinks that their site is going to be sold for units. If the government do not have a proposal to come up with a war chest for the next election, which is what I think that they will do, it is incumbent upon them to come out and say that they do not have an intention of selling off large slabs of previous school buildings to be turned into units.
There is a lot of pressure being put on the government by organisations like the Housing Industry Association, which came out at the end of January and encouraged the government to sell off the land as soon as possible to address housing shortages. I congratulate the minister on his presentation today, because it gives me some hope that the process will be an orderly one, will be a thoughtful one and will involve the community.
Dr Foskey’s motion is an important one, and it goes to the heart of the matter. The opposition supports the tenor of Dr Foskey’s motion and would be happy to support its passage in its present form. But I note very closely the commitments made by the minister, especially the commitment that he essentially makes in relation to his amendment. The only thing that I would welcome—again, Mr Deputy Speaker, I encourage members to give the minister some leeway to speak again if he wants to—would be for him to give an undertaking. In his amendment he says:
… no decisions will be taken by the Government until advice is provided on the best use of any surplus Government property …
I would welcome an undertaking that that information will become available to the community. If the minister is so inclined, I propose to move an amendment to add to the minister’s amendment to make that the case. The test will then be how good the minister is about that openness and consultation. Then we could probably have a workable way forward.
It would be better if we had a commitment from the government not to sell the land this side of the election, but I can count the numbers and I know that that will not be the case. I think that each community, and we in this Assembly, need to be vigilant to ensure that we are not creating a situation where the government can just have a huge war chest for the next election, which is what I suspect they will do.
All through the consultation, Minister Barr very cutely said, “This school renewal project”—it is the funniest thing, Mr Speaker, to talk about a school renewal project
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .