Page 6233 - Week 19 - Tuesday, 17 December 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
That is a very lengthy process that members will generally be familiar with, but I go through it in some tedious detail to indicate that it is the normal process and that it is only after all of that normal process that new leases can be issued allowing a casino as a use. In fact, the licence cannot be issued until the plan is varied in that way. Members can appreciate that that is the normal sort of plan variation process that we will be going through. They can take part in it. I am telling them that it has been advertised already in the Canberra Times. The Rally, all three of them, can put in three different reports, or the same report, if they wish and thereby make sure that their views are known.
Finally, Madam Temporary Deputy Speaker, I would like to comment that I take very seriously various members' reference to the need for counselling arrangements. As I have said before, I have taken note of the Assembly committee's report of 1989 that said that these arrangements are required regardless of whether we have a casino, and, as I have said before, it is something that we will look at very seriously when there is an incoming government, I guess.
I should touch on a couple of other matters. Mr Duby raised the question of the $19m up-front payment. I repeat that that is a matter for the incoming government. I think it would be very wrong for my own Government to have made any sorts of decisions at this point. Rather, it is a matter to be looked at in the budget context next year; but, as I said before, that money will be used for community facilities.
In closing, Madam Temporary Deputy Speaker, could I just comment that I have lived in Canberra since 1952, with only a couple of periods of absence. I have seen much more torrid debates than this amongst the community. One of the most notable was over the creation of Lake Burley Griffin. At the time the Canberra community felt that that would be divisive; that it had obvious hazards; that it would divide the community; that it would create all sorts of planning difficulties. As it has turned out, it is an integral part of the Canberra scene.
There were similar debates over the new Parliament House and enormous disquiet over its siting and design. I worked for an architect at the time that that debate was on and I can tell you that people bitterly opposed the project. The Canberra Times was full of alternative drawings and alternative siting proposals. It was very divisive yet it has turned out well, in my view. Similarly with the Telecom tower. I was part of the protest against the Telecom tower. I must admit that I still do not like the look of it and I still think it is too big, but there is no doubt that it is an enormous attraction for tourists. It offers a facility that our city can be proud of and it is obviously extremely popular. So, it serves a useful purpose.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .