Page 3661 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 23 October 2013
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
room. It would be fair to say that in 2010 the Greens favoured retention of the grass, and Ms Le Couteur made those comments on a number of occasions. So I find myself in an interesting position.
Since then we have seen what has proved to be a good and successful model—the installation of the raised grassy beds in the city. I think this has demonstrated a practical solution to the situation. The issue at Kingston was that people walking across the grass was one of the key threats to it and it was difficult to maintain. We see it across the city where desire lines form in grass and grass gets trampled and ends up with great big tracks across it, which is pretty unattractive on the whole. The raised beds in the city just across the road from the Assembly—I am sure most members have seen them—perhaps provide us with a good example of how we might proceed in Kingston.
The issue now seems to be that the traders in the area have written to the government with a very generous offer. As the Chief Minister will speak about more, no doubt, she has now responded. She came to see me earlier this week, and there seems to have been some sort of administrative error with that letter. I am sure there will be cynics about that at this point, but the cold, hard reality is that sometimes things get dropped in government and things go to the wrong place. That certainly appears to have been the case here.
Anyway, the Chief Minister came to see me earlier this week and we agreed that working with the traders to reinstall the grass in Kingston in some way was an appropriate way to proceed. So the letter back includes a direct contact point to one of the senior staff in TAMS so we can get that process underway. That goes to your question, Mr Doszpot, about time frames and not just disappearing again. We have given the traders a direct contact in order to ensure that that can be taken up as quickly as possible.
Some design work needs to be done to have a think about the best way to proceed to avoid the earlier problems of tracking across the grass, but there is an in-principle agreement to return to the grassed areas. To that end I have circulated an amendment to Mr Doszpot’s motion which seeks to update it since Mr Doszpot first circulated his motion a couple of days ago and before some of these matters came to light. I think it largely reflects Mr Doszpot’s original motion.
I have proposed an amendment to paragraph (1)(b), which I think is inconsequential—it is a matter of perspective. I propose to insert paragraph (1)(c), which notes that the government has accepted the offer. That is an update since Mr Doszpot drafted his motion and it is appropriate to reflect in there. Paragraph (2)(a) remains as Mr Doszpot moved it, and paragraph (2)(b) is largely as Mr Doszpot moved it but reflects the fact that the government will now work with the traders and the business owners in the Kingston area on a collaborative process to get this done and to combine the resources of government and the businesses in the area to get this moving along. My amendment simply reflects some of those updates, and I hope we can find agreement on that in the Assembly. Therefore I move:
Omit all words after “That this Assembly:”, substitute:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video