Page 4070 - Week 15 - Thursday, 17 December 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR MOORE: No, not today. I said that it has been said before. I said that I think it was said by Mr Lamont. He indicates that he did not, so I withdraw any names, Madam Speaker; but certainly in a previous debate it was raised. I would like to draw members' attention to a very recent report of the Standing Committee on Conservation, Heritage and Environment. I was part of a unanimous report saying that a development ought to go ahead in an area, and in this morning's paper I wear some flak for that decision.
That draws me to Mr Kaine's point about selfishness every time an area comes up for consideration. No doubt, there will be objections to development, but we ought to understand those objections. People are interested in their amenity and their children's amenity. They are entitled to that interest. In fact, Mr Kaine, people have gone to war to protect their amenity, to protect what they think is right - democracy, their right to freedom. This matter does not go to that extent, but most historians would say that the vast majority of wars have occurred over people trying to protect ownership of land. I am not attempting to say that the same thing would apply in this case. I see Mr Connolly attempting to misinterpret me. I am saying that we can understand people's motivation and we can understand what it is that motivates people to feel very strongly about their amenity. I believe that the reason - and Mr Kaine, in his previous statements, may well agree with me - people are most upset with these things is that they have no idea how they fit into an overall strategy for the development of Canberra.
Thanks to a very good report tabled by the Chief Minister earlier this week - and a good start it is - we are starting to move towards getting an overall picture so that people can see how development fits into the overall picture of Canberra and its development in the future. But they do not understand that at the moment, and not understanding the whole picture makes it very difficult for them to understand why it is that their particular amenity is being tackled at the moment. That is important in understanding why it is that people feel that they are not being dealt with fairly.
I seem to recall that back in 1985 a trailer park proposed in Duffy was opposed by Mr Kaine on the ground that it would destroy the residential amenity of the area where he lived at the time. Some people at times are motivated - and Mr Kaine is not exempt from this - by what they consider is part and parcel of their amenity. It is one thing to stand up now and say that people are terribly selfish when they oppose a development that will affect their amenity, but that statement can be applied equally to Mr Kaine under the circumstances I have mentioned. It would be appropriate for him to recognise that that is the case. People are interested in their own amenity and are entitled to present their opinion.
There will be times - and this appears to be one of them - when this Assembly as a whole rightfully makes a decision, in the broad community interest, to override the interest of the small groups; but those groups still have the right to have their opinion presented. Some percentage of this Assembly will recognise that right at different times. At different times different people will recognise the different style of amenity. Although this Assembly was not in existence in 1985, that 1985 example fits into the same broad category. It is for that reason that Ms Szuty, who is much more concerned about the area around West Belconnen and much more familiar with the feelings of the people around West Belconnen than most of us, has moved this motion today and argued so effectively for the disallowance of this particular development.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .