Page 4533 - Week 15 - Wednesday, 20 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The point has been raised by opposition speakers, and acknowledged by the Minister, that there will be sensitivity at the design and siting stage. That should satisfy the concerns. This proposal to simply quarantine part of the site and disallow the variation in respect only of the clubhouse and the original green, to us has all the hallmarks of a proposal that was thought up on the floor and put into debate without running through all the consequences. It means, as far as we can see, let her rip for any form of development on the bulk of the site as long as you save a part of the site, and that makes no sense at all from an urban planning or amenity perspective.
The more sensible course, as the Government has indicated, and as have a number of prudent speakers from the opposition benches, is to allow the variation to proceed. I am sure opposition members will closely monitor, as no doubt will members of the Labor Party, the design and siting process as this development begins. It may, in fact, mean that we can actually have some construction activity in Canberra, and that is a good thing from everyone's point of view.
MR KAINE (Leader of the Opposition) (12.08): I would like to speak briefly to Mr Collaery's amendment to the original motion. Mr Collaery made a fine political speech; but, if anybody seriously listened to what he said and changed their vote from the Liberal Party to the Residents Rally on the basis of that, I would have to question their sanity. The Residents Rally have demonstrated for nearly three years now how unstable they have been in government and out of it, and that mostly they cannot deliver on their promises anyway. If we are going to get into a political debate I will cross swords with Bernard on the political issue any time. I think he will lose, and he will lose at the ballot-box as well.
My problem, Madam Temporary Deputy Speaker, with Mr Collaery's proposal is that it does not solve the problem that he attempts to solve. Merely excising one-quarter of the block from the development proposal, which is what this would do, does nothing. It does nothing for the heritage value of the property. He says nothing about whether it is physically or financially feasible to restore - - -
Mr Collaery: You just expressed concern for the heritage.
MR KAINE: Of course I expressed concern about it, and I am concerned about it. Simply excising that quarter of the block from the variation proposal is a nice political ploy, but it achieves nothing. This is the point that I am making, Mr Collaery. I would like you to tell me, if you can, how taking a quarter of the block and excising it from the variation proposal achieves one jot of success in preserving the heritage value of that property or contributing in any way to the viability of the redevelopment proposal. It does nothing. Quite frankly,
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .