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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 11 Hansard (29 November) . . Page.. 3371 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

I heard Mr Corbell's suggestion that they actually do not have that role. Well, that is a matter to be resolved by the proper processes and probably within the AAT, and Mr Corbell referred to that. But to suggest that therefore there is some kind of blackmail, as Ms Tucker did, I think is a somewhat strong representation of what is going on here. I did meet with the Hughes Residents Association, at its request, and considered this matter. It seemed to me that they basically had the choice between what they consider the worst situation and what they consider a little less worse situation.

The meeting was only earlier this week. Their view on this was that they believe they would prefer to allow the club to proceed with the development of its lease an as of right development. I indicated to them, and I indicate in this house, that, where somebody does have the right to develop on their lease, I will work vigorously to defend their right to do that, because that is part of the protection of the leasehold system. When somebody has a prerogative to do something within their lease conditions and the proper process has said, "Yes, that is your right" or "No, that's not," then I think we should support that, because those of us who argue that we should support the leasehold system have to also support somebody's right to that development.

So, that having been said, I intend to oppose Mr Kaine's motion because I think that the people most affected within the community say no, this is not what they want. I should indicate that I actually think they are wrong, and I indicated this to them. I think that the result they will have is a motel complex/conference centre along those lines, but that is the choice they are making, and have made as far as I am concerned, in this particular process.

It is not a choice about doing nothing. I believe that choice is not there. And, in saying that, I also say this: should the residents there say, "Whoops, we've got it wrong," as I think they did, or have a much broader meeting where other residents override what I am being told by the executive of the Hughes Residents Association, then I would either ask Mr Kaine to bring the motion back on or come back and revisit it. I am actually prepared to revisit it, but at this stage I will oppose it.

MR SMYTH (Minister for Urban Services) (12:09): Mr Speaker, the government has always said that we thought this development should go ahead. We voted last time in favour of it and unfortunately it went down. The question that now comes is: what is the Federal Golf Club allowed to do with its lease and the land that it has under that lease? It has now put forward a proposal that says that under the ancillary use provision it would like to build a motel and attendant conference facilities. That is its right.

Mr Kaine, in putting forward his motion, is saying that perhaps we as the Assembly should consider whether that is the best outcome-whether the impact of some 50 or 60 units is a lesser impact and that should be considered, or whether we allow the Federal Golf Club to do what it reasonably believes it can do under its lease. That is the decision for us today.

As Ms Carnell has pointed out, we actually do have a gap in the tourist market that could be accommodated by such a facility. And, if the Federal Golf Club wanted to go ahead and exercise its right under its lease to develop that facility, it would be able to.

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