Page 4449 - Week 15 - Tuesday, 19 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
is rapidly becoming unsuccessful. A successful tennis club is growing, providing people with the encouragement to get out and play sport, to stay fit. As we know, the fitter people stay the less likely they are to have health problems. While that is going on and while the tennis club is prepared to take over some of that land, then we really must take its concerns into consideration.
The notion of redeveloping this site in the way proposed is entirely inappropriate. What we are doing is opening the door to allow every developer to go to all the clubs, particularly those in inner Canberra, and say, as somebody said before - I think it was Mr Jensen - "Boy, have we got a deal for you!". We certainly saw that sort of deal operate with the Uniting Church on the corner of Barry Drive and Northbourne Avenue - "Boy, have we got a deal for you". And of course they did.
Of course, this is the case with the bowling club proposal as well. It is development driven. It has very little to do with the club. It is not difficult for a small club to be taken over by a number of people - vocal people - who have a great idea for making life a lot easier, a lot better, for the people who are involved in the club. But what does that mean for the rest of the community? It means the loss of a major source of revenue.
It seems to me that, whilst this report finds that due process was followed, it is still the case that the redevelopment is entirely and absolutely inappropriate. I think it is a great shame that the Planning Committee - I exempt Mr Jensen because of his dissenting comments - narrowed their focus to due process instead of recognising their role in advising the Assembly appropriately, not on whether due process was followed, but on whether or not this is an appropriate development to go ahead. Clearly, it is not. Clearly, it is not in the interests of Canberra. Clearly, it is not in the interests of social justice. When the debate on this comes up, I urge members to act in the interests of social justice and reject this variation to the Territory Plan.
MR COLLAERY (9.14): Mr Speaker, I lived near a tranquil setting once. There were large gum trees. People used to set up their easels and paint there. It was peaceful; there was birdlife, possums, and so on. Now, two mornings a week I am woken up at 5 o'clock by a truck emptying a Tiger bin or some form of big metal bin. It is not on the same day as we have our other 5 o'clock noise from the other garbage trucks. A very small decision to put a Tiger waste disposal bin near our bedroom window has disturbed totally the way I sleep.
That may seem trite. The fact is that the citizens of this Territory, more than just the few people who lived at Rocky Knoll, will revolt over what is going on. Little do they know how many green papers are in the pipeline at the moment. I do not know whether Ms Follett believes that,
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .