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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 11 Hansard (29 November) . . Page.. 3365 ..

MR KAINE (continuing):

I believe that the proposal is totally unsatisfactory from everybody's viewpoint. And I believe it is really unsatisfactory from the club's viewpoint because my understanding is that this is not its preferred course of action. It has come up with this proposal as an alternative only since its original proposal under the planning mechanisms was rejected, and it had to find some way of accumulating the funds that are needed to make the club a useable club and to make the golf course a useable course-to provide for water, to recycle the grey water and to do essential maintenance that is required to maintain the club in existence as a viable golf club.

As I said before, I honestly believe that, had we known what the consequences of rejecting the variation would be when we rejected it a year ago, we may well have taken a different course; we may well have come to a different conclusion. I think the only way to resolve that, and to put the matter back into the public arena where matters can be properly and satisfactorily dealt with in the interests of the club and its members and the interests of the community at large, is to bring the matter back into the planning mechanisms and processes and deal with all of the issues, including the community's concerns about it, in a formalised and proper fashion. That would at least make sure that their concerns are dealt with because, while they have continuing concerns with the alternative proposal that is now before us-well, it is not before us; it is going ahead without us-the fact is that members of the community have no formal mechanisms through which they can consult and have their concerns properly taken into account. Well, they do not exist and I don't think that is good enough.

I am urging members to support my motion asking that the government bring back the variation for further consideration and we can then consider the original proposal again. We can reconsider it on its merits, and this time in light of what the less desirable alternatives might be if we again reject that variation. I seek the assistance and the support of members first of all to bring it back for consideration, and I seek the assistance of the government in taking what is perhaps an unusual step to resubmit to the Assembly this original variation proposal so that we can have another look at it.

MR CORBELL (11.43): Mr Speaker, the Labor Party believes there is no merit in supporting the proposal put to the Assembly today by Mr Kaine. There is no merit in it because Mr Kaine's whole argument is based on a series of assumptions and presumptions without any concrete evidence whatsoever. Mr Kaine asserts that the reason that this Assembly should request the minister to direct the Planning Authority to again bring forward a draft variation to permit residential development at Federal Golf Club is that the club will do a development of a hotel if we do not.

But how sure are we, as an assembly, that that is going to occur? First of all, I guess Mr Kaine would say we have the advice of the club. The club is, of course, entitled to assert that it believes that it has a right under its lease to pursue a hotel/motel-type development. But what are the facts? The fact is that no development application has been lodged. In fact, there is actually no plan whatsoever of what the club is proposing to build.

So how can Mr Kaine make a judgment that this proposal would be more undesirable than the previous one when there is no plan-when there is absolutely no formal proposal before any government agency, or indeed, as far as I am aware, before any member of this place, that outlines exactly what the proposal will look like? Mr Kaine

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