Page 4518 - Week 15 - Wednesday, 20 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
That is the essence of the argument: Is this suitable for Forrest? My argument is that it is suitable for any suburban part of Canberra. The proposal matches up in all respects; it is suitable for Canberra, and it is also suitable for Forrest.
MR MOORE (11.16): One cannot help wondering what has changed in relation to the former Labor Opposition since they have come into government.
Mr Duby: It is called accepting responsibility.
MR MOORE: It is called being a chameleon. The precedent for this particular sort of development has been set in Braddon. There was a proposal for a similar style of development on the Northbourne Oval on which a club had been given a lease for a particular purpose, a sporting purpose, because it was suitable for the community as a whole; it was in the community interest.
The competing interests that Trevor Kaine talks about are, as he sees it, the interests of the members of the club compared with the interests of a few members of the local community. This has been reiterated by his colleague Bill Wood. So, Trevor Kaine and Bill Wood are working together to present this particular development as though the competing interests are those of a single club competing with those of a few local residents. This was reiterated again and again by Mr Wood in the last few minutes. That is not what the argument is about at all, as far as I am concerned.
Let us go back to the principles upon which our leasehold system operates. No doubt, members have heard me speak on this issue on many occasions in this chamber. The simple principle is this: Should those people who were given the land to use in a particular way now be allowed to make a huge windfall profit by using the land in an entirely different way, from which the community sees little or no interest? What exacerbates this particular problem even more is that in this situation the land was provided for sporting purposes to suit the community as a whole and there is a sporting body next door that has given a clear indication that it could use the land if the bowling club no longer wants or needs it or if they cannot sustain it.
The truth of the matter is that the bowling club can no longer sustain or use that land which they were given to use as a bowling club. They cannot do it because they do not have the interest of the members to provide the financial support. Yet next door there are 700 or so members of a tennis club, who can and do provide the sort of support that has improved their facilities significantly over the last little while and who have a specific interest in the land.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .