Page 4997 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 26 October 2011

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video

Calwell is disadvantaged as a major centre because the area has been neglected. What we are finding now is that all of a sudden it has been discovered and certain points are being tried to be put across by this government, again in opposition to what the community really wants.

Mr Barr, I come back to what I said before: if you listened to the motion that Mr Smyth eloquently put, you would know that we are speaking on behalf of the community to try and help you from making yet another Barr-flip. We know this has received a lot of attention this morning and the government is pointing out that it is for the community’s good. Well, the community understands what is good for it, and lack of planning certainly is not. The problems that have been created by your so-called desire for action are what the community is fighting against. And, Ms Bresnan, it would be fair to bring into this discussion some of the concerns of the community that you claim to be representing here this morning.

I support Mr Seselja and Mr Smyth and the motion that is before us at the moment. I certainly support on behalf of the Calwell community calling on the government to postpone the proposed sale of section 790 block 5 in Calwell until it has developed a master plan for the Calwell commercial and shopping centre precinct and the surrounding area.

MR SMYTH (Brindabella) (11.56): It is very hard to support the Greens’ amendment. It is badly worded, it is contradictory and it does not hold the government to account. I draw members’ attention to a number of items. Paragraph (1) lists:

(h) that the aged care site under tender is back to back to other blocks without space being left between them for paths and roads;

But paragraph (2) says that the government should:

(a) address community concerns in Calwell through …

(vii) ensuring that adequate roads and footpaths are provided adjacent to the proposed aged care site before it is built …

If it is adjacent and back to back to other blocks, what Ms Bresnan is suggesting is that the government will build footpaths and roads on other people’s property to service the aged-care block. So if you are going to reclaim property from, for instance, the Alliance Church, which is directly next to it, or perhaps the car wash, I would be very interested to know how the minister feels about starting that process. And that is the falsehood that is this amendment. What it says is, “We have got some concerns but you address it on somebody else’s property.” Is Ms Bresnan suggesting the road go over the stormwater drain or over the easement? Or is it going on other people’s property? We do not know, because this amendment is contradictory.

It is interesting that what the Greens seem to be saying is, “Yes, aged care is important.” We agree. What the government is saying is, “Aged care is important.” Yes, we agree with that. But it is not important in isolation to the other concerns of the community and, indeed, the concerns of the aged community. There are aged

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video