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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 9 Hansard (27 August) . . Page.. 3232 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

would be really quite ludicrous to be watering an unproductive third nine. So there seemed to be pretty much a consensus that holes 19 to 27 were gone.

This proposed development was run past me some months ago, and it seemed to have a lot of merit. PALM and the minister seem to be putting up a whole lot of opposition-perhaps even for opposition's sake-to what could be a very sensible and very good development. Maybe certain things need to be modified. Mrs Dunne has shown me a list of issues raised by PALM. One was that "the proposed development will create a small isolated pocket of development on the extreme western periphery of Belconnen". I do not think the developer or indeed the people at the golf course are particularly concerned about that. Indeed, a lot of other parts of Belconnen are on the extreme western periphery. I live in a house very close to the periphery, as indeed do you, Mr Speaker, and I do not think that particularly concerns a lot of people.

I was quite impressed with how the proposed development would assist people. There was talk about even running their own bus if ACTION was not going to get involved. I saw it as being potentially excellent for not only the aged people but for other people in the region. The nearby Kippax Centre, probably the Charnwood shops and a number of other people would significantly benefit from that.

PALM commented that residential areas need accessibility to recreation, retail, public transport, et cetera. I have addressed some of those issues. They also said that allowing the proposed development would mean the loss of an existing restricted access recreation area. I do not think anyone is using it at present. I do not think anyone is really complaining about the loss of the nine holes because they regard that as inevitable. At any rate, I think we are probably going to lose a lot of other recreational areas through water restrictions.

This actually seems to me to be an example of a sensible proposal. I am sure there are many others which, with maybe some further tweaking-yes, I'm sure it probably needs that-would actually work very well. I think PALM and the minister need to think a lot more laterally in relation to this issue of aged care; otherwise we will have an even greater crisis on our hands in terms of the increasing number of aged persons-and a hell of a lot of us are getting into that category. A lot of our fellow citizens in Canberra are. That is simply something that's just going to continue.

I think we do need a much more creative approach to this problem than is currently being shown by the government or by the department.

MR SPEAKER: If we were to deal with this amendment now, Mr Cornwell, when we come to the question that the motion, as amended, be agreed to, you could close the debate then.

MR CORNWELL (11.07): Yes, that's tidier, thank you.

MR SPEAKER: You can speak to Mr Corbell's amendment on its own, if you want to.

MR CORNWELL: I might do that, Mr Speaker.

MR SPEAKER: But you will confine yourself to Mr Corbell's amendment, won't you?

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