Page 4522 - Week 15 - Wednesday, 20 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
It would be a noble thing for the members of the Forrest bowling club to say, "Look, we are too old; we are not bowling any more". I do not know whether this is right. If it is not right, let them tell me. "We do not need all that land; we give it back to the people of Canberra, to the community". That would be a noble thing for them to do.
I do not believe for a moment that the essence of the debate is whether or not this is a viable project. I would like to set aside altogether the question of 26 townhouses or 50 townhouses, or whatever. There is a piece of land which is part of the heritage of the community. The heritage in question here is not a small 1927 building, if that is what it is, with white ants. Obviously, there has been bad management of the Forrest bowling club, or they would not have white ants. Maybe there has been another type of white-anting. The essence of the debate is not about that; it is the heritage of that part of Canberra for the whole of the community of Canberra. I find it so hard to believe - Mr Moore used the word "chameleon" and I thought he was being kind - that the Labor Party, of all parties, could possibly accept this obscene proposal, to use Mr Jensen's words.
I ask that that land be returned to the community, to the people, for rezoning, releasing and reorganising in the public interest. Of course I agree with Mr Wood that this city is in the process of change. We are not some kind of museum. That land, though, once alienated from purposes for which it was intended, can only with great difficulty be changed. If 26 townhouses were put on it it would be very hard to pull them down again. Here we have a piece of land which is for community use, for sporting use, and that should be the prime object of our interest here. What is it in Labor Party policy that could possibly justify the misuse of a community sporting facility?
MR COLLAERY (11.32): I endorse the comments of my colleagues Mr Jensen, Mr Moore and Dr Kinloch. I have grave reservations about the comments made by my colleague Mr Kaine, and serious concerns in particular about some comments made by Mr Wood. I will deal with those.
Mr Jensen moved a motion to disallow this draft variation to the Territory Plan. I foreshadow moving an amendment to Mr Jensen's motion in a few moments. That amendment will be circulated when it is finally prepared by the Clerk. In the meantime I want to set the climate for this decision making process that led to this divisive issue in the community.
The climate, of course, is that we do not have, at this stage, a permanent appointee, with tenure, as Territory Chief Planner. That is a very important issue in any society, particularly a planned society such as this one. There are inevitably questions about the overdependence of a temporary incumbent and the overdependence of a Territory
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .