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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 11 Hansard (29 November) . . Page.. 3373 ..

MR SMYTH (continuing):

The section to which Mr Kaine's motion applies is "Executive Policy Directions", which says that the executive or the minister may give the authority. I will be interested in seeing the outcome of the vote. Clearly, the vote last year said, "No, don't let it proceed." But we in the government have always believed that we should be working towards supporting the club in its endeavours.

I think Mr Corbell raised the issue of "Well, they can just get a loan" or whatever. I understand the club has done all that work-that it has looked at the options open to it to raise the sort of money it needs to secure the future of the club in the long term. That club provides wonderful facilities to those that are members and use the club. And we ought to be looking constructively at ways of supporting the club.

To simply say, "Go and get a loan" and to be dismissive of the work that the club has done, and the vast amount of money that the club has actually put into the progress that it has made on this, I think is unfortunate.

So we end up with really two proposals on the table here today: through Mr Kaine, the ability to bring forward a draft variation which would allow the original concept of some 50 or 60 townhouses on a disused fairway; or, as the club has prepared-and I understand it has had a preliminary meeting with PALM to discuss the progress of its application-an application to develop a hotel-cum-convention centre on the site, which is obviously the path it will take if it is not able to achieve its first outcome.

It is a dilemma, and it is not a dilemma that will be solved easily, I suspect. But it is a dilemma that this Assembly can give some guidance on. It is not enough to say, as Mr Corbell did, "We are presented with a worst choice and a less worse choice." The club has done the work here. The club has done a lot of work here. It is aware of all of the issues of how the land is affected. And indeed, in its original offer, once the townhouses were built it was to cede some of the property back for the benefit of all territorians.

The dilemma for us is to make sure that we get it right. The government did support variation 94 last year. The government will be supporting Mr Kaine's motion today, because we actually believe that is a lesser impact and a better use. Should this motion go down, the club is, of course, free under its lease, and under the laws that govern planning in the ACT, to put forward a DA to allow it to exercise what is already included in its lease. And all the people here need today to take that into consideration.

Mr Speaker, the government supports the motion. We supported proposed variation 94. I commend the motion to the house.

MR KAINE (12.17), in reply: Mr Speaker, before we vote on this matter, I just want to address some of the issues raised by Mr Corbell and Ms Tucker in opposition to the motion, because I fear that much of their opposition seems to be based on some sort of conjecture rather than fact. And I think that we need to be clear, if we are going to vote on this issue, that we are dealing with facts and not conjecture.

There seems almost to be an element in the debate of saying to this golf club, "We will allow you to do nothing. It doesn't matter what proposal you come up with; we will block it"-we will find every possible objection to it doing what in fact it is entitled to

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