Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 10 Hansard (14 October) . . Page.. 3174 ..
MR CORBELL (continuing):
Mr Hird went on to argue that the Labor Party and I as a member of the Urban Services Committee who issued the dissenting report on this issue raised issues which were irrelevant to the consideration of the Urban Services Committee and irrelevant to the consideration of the draft variation. He raised the point that I had raised concerns about what this process would mean for the administration of the leasehold system in the Territory. He argued that that was not a term of reference for the inquiry we were undertaking.
It is interesting to look at the recommendations of the majority report of the Urban Services Committee. There are two recommendations there that have absolutely nothing to do with the specifics of the variation. The first is that the Government should require the golf club to "indemnify the Territory against any possible accidents arising from wayward golf balls in the area set aside for housing". I do not know what that has to do with the variation. In fact, it is not in any way part of the formal terms of reference of the inquiry into the variation by the Urban Services Committee.
The other is recommendation 7, which states:
... that all dams for the Federal Golf Course be located within the Club's boundary; and that a series of dams of moderate wall height replace the single large dam once envisaged on land near existing houses.
Again, Mr Speaker, if anyone looked at the draft variation - and the committee certainly did, and members should know this - the issue of dams was in no way part of the draft variation. It is simply absurd for Mr Hird to argue that I am arguing irrelevant points. We all bring to our committee inquiries issues that we believe come out of the matter we are inquiring into, and we all place different weights on those. Mr Hird and Mr Rugendyke are quite entitled to raise the issue of dams and golf balls. I think they are quite sensible recommendations. But it is silly for Mr Hird to suggest that I too cannot raise issues which are not directly related to, but do arise out of, the variation.
Mr Hird went on to say that the golf club has followed due process. Indeed, they have, and I must commend the club on their diligence in that process. I have no objection to the way the club has gone about the process. They have gone about it appropriately and certainly very effectively. But the final decision on whether or not this proposal should proceed lies with the Assembly. Just because someone jumps through all of the hoops required for a change to the Territory Plan to get to this stage does not mean there is an automatic acceptance of that. The final decision lies with the Assembly, not the proponent.
Mr Smyth suggested, as did Mr Hird, that the leasehold issues which I raised in my dissenting report were not relevant and that I was trying to make up my own rules and trying to pluck something out of thin air about the issue of a windfall gain to the golf club. I would like to draw the Minister's attention to the "Report into the Administration of the ACT Leasehold" brought down in late 1995. Recommendation 14 of that report states: