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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 10 Hansard (14 October) . . Page.. 3136 ..

MR RUGENDYKE (continuing):

necessary requirements. The golf club has been prepared to compromise. It is prepared to return nine hectares of land to the ACT. The number of units has been reduced, albeit only by two, but that was a sign that it was prepared to compromise. The opponents of the development were totally inflexible, totally against any sort of negotiation or compromise.

The fact that Mr Corbell has a different opinion on this proposal and has expressed that opinion in his dissenting report should not be seen as anything out of the ordinary. Mr Speaker, there was an allegation here today that process has been ignored. I suggest to you that the appropriate process has taken place during the consideration of this development - preliminary assessment, development application, consultation, committee inquiry, and committee report. The mechanism for disallowance which Mr Corbell has initiated today brings it before the Assembly for ultimate consideration. It puts it up for scrutiny, as is happening here today. Mr Speaker, that is an appropriate process, and it is being followed here today, as I say.

It is my view that the concerns raised by opponents to this development have been addressed by PALM. I am satisfied that the proposal of the golf course to provide housing on its lease should be supported. I stand by the majority report's recommendation and I oppose the motion for disallowance.

MS TUCKER (12.19): Unlike the Government, the Greens' position on this housing development at the Federal Golf Club has been consistent throughout the process. Just in case Mr Smyth is going to be found guilty of misleading the house again - two days in a row - I will correct for his benefit the statement he made that the Greens have not - - -

MR SPEAKER: Order! Ms Tucker, would you mind withdrawing that imputation.

MS TUCKER: He did mislead yesterday, but he apologised afterwards, sorry. Today he - - -

MR SPEAKER: No, withdraw it today, please.

MS TUCKER: I withdraw it, certainly.

MR SPEAKER: Thank you.

MS TUCKER: Mr Smyth did say that the Greens had put forward three times legislation or motions regarding appeal rights. That is incorrect; it has been only twice. We did approach them from different directions, but they were consistent. That demonstrates once again that the Greens are at least consistent, even though the Government is not and, I have to agree, Labor has not been in the past. I will make a comment about that in terms of it being a point of argument. What Labor has done in the past is irrelevant to the discussion today. If Labor has improved its position on planning, which it has - I support Mr Moore's comments there; I congratulate Labor on that - we are glad to see it. Mr Rugendyke put up the argument that we have to take account of precedents. If they are bad precedents, that is not a sensible approach.

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