Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 11 Hansard (29 November) . . Page.. 3364 ..

MR KAINE (continuing):

community who used to, and probably still do, walk through there for recreational purposes.

A large hotel-type building with conference centres and an administrative complex would, in my view, totally preclude the possibility of access by the general population around the area. It would be totally denied to them, whereas it would not be denied to them totally under the original proposal.

Furthermore, since the variation was rejected, the club is no longer under any obligation to return to the community the 9.2 hectares of surplus land. It will retain it and, presumably, at some future time, use it for whatever purposes suit the club, as long as they are within the terms of the lease that it has. Now, it seems to me that this is a totally bad option that has been presented to the club. Of course, another factor is that, under the original proposal for the variation to the plan, the community would have received the benefit of the betterment allowance, at whatever rate was applicable under the act. Mr Corbell mentioned that in an earlier debate. The rate is 100 per cent at the moment.

Mr Corbell: It is 75 at the moment.

MR KAINE: They would pay betterment tax at whatever rate the act prescribes. But, if they go ahead with an as of right development under the existing lease, no such payment is required. Regardless of whether they do it as of right or as a result of the variation to the plan, future rates on the land would change as a result of a Taxation Office valuation, I imagine. But under an as of right development the initial up-front betterment payment disappears; it does not exist.

There is another aspect of this. I am aware that the original opponents of this proposal in the Hughes and Garran area still have concerns about any development there. Well, the fact is that under an as of right development those people have no formal means of registering their objections. They have no way of even determining, as of right, what the club is proposing. The club is not bound to tell them. And no formal consultation mechanisms are provided for if the club proceeds with what I believe is its non-preferred option. So the people of that area who have concerns have no method of having those concerns discussed, debated, and resolved under an as of right proposal.

On the other hand, if that proposal is restored and the thing proceeds through the proposed variation method, which, as I said, this Assembly curtailed-in fact, it just cut it off and said, "No. We're not going to let that go any further"-then under the law those people have a right to be consulted, they have a right to express their view, they have a right to have their objections taken into account by the planning authorities and they have a right for their views and the authority's response to be published. So, for obvious reasons, the proposal by the club to go ahead with an as of right development is not in the public interest.

It is not in the public interest from the planning viewpoint-I think it will result in a bad planning outcome-it is not in the public interest in terms of the fact that the betterment payment will be lost to the community, and it is not in the public interest in that the people who have a genuine concern about what is happening there lose their rights under the law to have their concerns heard and properly considered.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .