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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 6 Hansard (14 June) . . Page.. 1741 ..

Mr Stanhope: Is the money being used to pay the debts?

MR STEFANIAK: Whether this wonderful development goes ahead or not is irrelevant to the issue of mass participation sport.

Mr Stanhope: The money is being used to pay the debts.

MR SPEAKER: I warn you, Mr Stanhope.

MR STEFANIAK: It would be wonderful if this great development occurred, because we will be paid back the full amount of the investment. If you are ever in government, Mr Hargreaves, I suggest you apply a little test to whether you grant government money. Always assume that Murphy's law is the relevant law. If something can go wrong, it will.

What is the bottom line? Some things may or may not happen. If the bottom line is that that money will go to the general community good, you will have better facilities for people who play tennis in Canberra-kids and older people playing in club competitions, territory competitions, state competitions, national competitions. If there is a real benefit in that, it is money well spent. I think the $1.7 million is money well spent for the sport of tennis in the ACT, regardless of what might happen with this development.

Already we have probably seen thousands of Canberrans benefit from the courts at Lyneham. They will further benefit when the full 20 courts-15 clay and five Rebound Ace-are completed.

Mr Hargreaves: I seek leave to table four documents, which are the proposed women's schedule and the proposed men's schedule, taken from the Internet today.

Leave granted.

Mr Hargreaves: I present the following papers:

Tennis Australia-Australian Unit Tour-

Proposed Men's Schedule-July 2001-June 2002.

Proposed Women's Schedule-July 2001-June 2002.

Mr Humphries: Mr Speaker, I propose that further questions be placed on the notice paper.

Lanyon shopping centre

MR SMYTH: Mr Osborne asked yesterday whether a block of land was being rezoned. The answer is that the block Mr Osborne refers to, which is block 6 section 227 of Conder, is not the subject of a Territory Plan variation. However, the block does have a development application in to change the lease purpose clause to add shop and to remove some of the uses which generate parking-for example, child care, craft workshop, health facility and indoor recreation facility. The block has a commercial

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