Page 4539 - Week 15 - Wednesday, 20 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Motion (by Mr Berry) agreed to:
That so much of the standing and temporary orders be suspended as would prevent the debate on this matter concluding.
MR STEVENSON (12.27), by leave: I think the debate today has been useful. The principle that I largely adhere to is: What do the majority of the community feel. I think that has been shown by the petition that was received, the concern that has been shown in the number of letters received by people in the Assembly, and also the majority of submissions received in regard to the proposal that are against the development.
I think it is perfectly reasonable that the club and club members have tried to improve the club and to improve the facilities for their members. If they can do that through working with developers, that is perfectly acceptable from their point of view.
From a community or government point of view, the point about the original granting of land use is a relevant one that we should take great concern over. There has been no absolute understanding of what the majority of people in Canberra or in those surrounding areas want on this issue, but I think we can assume that the majority of people are not in agreement with this current proposal. If we do not agree to this disallowance today, I think the proposal will be built as it is suggested. If we do vote for Mr Jensen's disallowance motion, I feel that it still leaves the way open for a development to proceed.
One of the things that I wondered about initially relates to the many people in a tennis club across the road; indeed, as we have heard today, a club that is vibrant and has raised a great deal of money. I have been involved in sporting clubs, and for a club to raise that much money is an unusual thing. It shows a definite commitment. I felt, and this proposal has been made on a number of occasions, that the clubs could amalgamate. That seems to me to be a highly sensible decision. If this proposal goes ahead, I do not think we will hear any more of that, unfortunately.
On the point of development, there is nothing wrong with developers making a great deal of money. As for the land use being changed, there is the right of anyone to apply for land use changes. That is what has happened. It is up to the members of this Assembly to make the decision. But, under the circumstances, I feel that the proposal is not agreed to by the majority of people in the area and I think we should heed that call and delay the matter. I think the only way we can do that is by voting for Mr Jensen's proposal at this time.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .