Page 4532 - Week 15 - Wednesday, 20 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
consideration; but I certainly would like the Government, before going ahead with the design and siting approval, to take into consideration the views of the community with regard to the clubhouse and the number and density of the development of the townhouses.
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General, Minister for Housing and Community Services and Minister for Urban Services) (12.04): We have had some very measured and calm speeches and remarks this morning from people like Mr Kaine, Mr Duby and Ms Maher, basically reiterating that the process has been gone through; there has been extensive consultation; there is nothing improper about this process; and there is no reason why we ought to throw this out. I noted that Mr Duby, towards the end of his speech, said that he suspected that this was more about a bit of a political stunt to try to embarrass the Liberal Party than anything else, and I will just leave those remarks of his as noted.
One of the problems is trying to change the rules of planning or development halfway through the game, and we seem to see the Residents Rally trying that time and again. I noted in the report handed down yesterday of the committee that examined this that there was a dissenting report suggesting that we pull in what will be the law for a one-off proposal, for this development exercise. That really is changing the game halfway through. That proposal makes no sense at all.
Now we see a rather peculiar amendment. I got up more to invite a response on this than anything else, so that my ministerial colleague Mr Wood can give the definitive government response. We are really at a loss to understand what Mr Collaery's amendment is all about. It seems to us that they are saying that they want to put a wall of protection around one area, that is the original clubhouse and green. Numerous speakers have addressed the heritage issue and the problem of trying to get that back to original condition. Mr Wood has indicated that the Government will look at that. As Mr Kaine says, nothing is cast in concrete about what will appear here; there will be a design and siting process, and there will be sensitivity to the views of local residents.
All that Mr Collaery's amendment would seem to us to do, and I would be interested to hear a rebuttal of this, is that it will quarantine part of the site; and as for the rest of the site, whether it is 40, 60, 80 or 100 townhouses, they do not really seem to care. For some reason they are obsessive about keeping one part of the site. As for the rest of the site, that is somebody else's lookout. That, to us, seems to be a particularly senseless amendment. It really adds absolutely nothing to the debate.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .