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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 11 Hansard (29 November) . . Page.. 3375 ..

MR KAINE (continuing):

In connection with the windfall gain, Ms Tucker said that if they were putting forward a proposal on a commercial basis she would find that okay. This is a commercial proposal. They have got to find the money to build this facility-this hotel with a convention centre and all of the associated things-and they are doing it in the expectation that they will derive a gain from it that they can use to develop their club. It is a commercial venture. If Ms Tucker says this is not a commercial venture, I would like her to define for me in what way it fails the test of commerciality, because I cannot see it.

So there seems to be a little bit of an element of bad faith here, attributing bad motives to the directors of the club, which I do not do, and some suggestion that they are playing a game-that they are trying to bluff us into doing something. I do not believe that is the case. I believe that they are deadly serious in what they are proposing, and that it will go ahead. I do not believe there is an element of a windfall gain in it at all.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, I will say what I have already said: I believe that this alternative proposal will be grossly intrusive, it is out of character with the rest of the development in the area, and the footprint will be much greater than the residential development's would have been. It will be more exclusive, in that it will not allow the freedom for people to move freely through there to the same extent as the residential development would. It involves the retention by the club of 9.2 hectares of land which would otherwise revert to the community. That in itself is a very significant loss in allowing this second proposal to go forward. And, of course, it will result in the loss of any potential betterment tax.

In my view, it would be a bad decision to allow it to proceed, and that is the reason why I brought this forward-not to support the club in some devious approach to gain something. I brought forward the proposal to bring the variation back because I believe it is in the public interest to do so. And it is contrary to the public interest to allow the variation to lapse and to allow the club to go ahead with this less preferable proposal, which it is perfectly entitled to do.

So I would urge Mr Corbell and Ms Tucker to perhaps think a little more logically about what we are discussing here today, take the case on its merits and look at it from the viewpoint that I have, and look at my motives in bringing the thing forward in the first place-or are they going to accuse me of acting in bad faith in putting it forward? I am not sure. If they look at it honestly and sincerely, I think they have to come to the conclusion that the best option is to bring the variation back and reconsider it. I urge members to do so.

Question put:

The Assembly voted-