Page 2910 - Week 10 - Thursday, 15 August 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Stevenson: I take a point of order, Mr Speaker. I could not go on for another minute without raising this across-the-Assembly chat. When I do it, it normally gets mentioned.
MR SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr Stevenson. You do it more loudly. Please, members, address your questions and answers through the Chair.
MR KAINE: Mr Speaker, it seems to me that the piece of land that we are talking about, despite the decision adopted by the Labor Party, has no particular environmental merit. There is no reason to set it aside from a lot of other land around Canberra and say that it has value that other land does not have. Does Mr Wood have some better use for it?
Mr Wood: Recreation.
MR KAINE: I am afraid that in a growing city there are some areas of land that simply cannot be retained for recreation, and there is no reason and no justification for this particular piece of land being retained for that purpose. I would argue, Mr Speaker, that there is no better use for that piece of land than the one proposed by the RSL; first of all, because the members of the RSL deserve some recognition in this community; and, secondly, as ageing people they are entitled to some consideration.
That site is ideally located for the purpose for which they are proposing to use it. It is convenient to the recreational facilities that you value so highly around Lake Ginninderra; but you are saying that they ought to go somewhere else and, in your view, presumably as far away from Lake Ginninderra as you can get them. Take them away; send them off into the backblocks somewhere. Do not let them anywhere near any community facilities. Furthermore, it is in close proximity to the Belconnen Mall and the shopping and other community facilities that are there that these people are entitled to have access to, and would have access to if they were allowed to have that piece of ground.
So, I do not know. I do not understand the reason for the opposition and why it is considered that somebody else - some mythical group, some unspecified person - has a much better claim and a much greater claim to that piece of land than the RSL. You have not justified it. You have only put it forward in some sort of subjective way. You have not told us what the argument is. Who are these people who think that the land should be used for something else? Where is this community consultation that you are so fond of quoting? With whom did you consult to make this arbitrary decision about whether the RSL can or cannot have access to that land?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .