Page 930 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 26 July 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
some of the myths that have been put about on this project by the Government.
I must be thankful, I guess, that they did agree to strongly recommend that some of the perceptions about what we as a community would be getting after we had sold our souls for another hotel and a casino on section 19 should be dispelled. Let us all be under no illusions, Mr Speaker; there will be a multimillion dollar shortfall between what we, as a community, will get for section 19 and what we need to provide our much-needed theatre complex, library, and Civic Square redevelopment. I do not believe I saw anything in the budget papers that would lead me to believe that we would be committing funds to the shortfall. You will note, Mr Speaker, that I have referred to a theatre complex, because that is what the community believes we are getting.
Certainly this idea has appeared in the media, and the government - both Federal and our own - have not seen fit to correct that misconception. Even one of the project supporters whom one would have expected would be well aware of what the shortfall might be, when questioned by me on this matter, said that he expected "the redevelopment of the theatres, the demolition of the North and South Buildings, the provision of funds for the redevelopment of a library and a number of other things". When further questioned as to whether he thought that the premium from the site would pay for these facilities, he answered in the affirmative.
Clearly, Mr Speaker, if one of the supporters of the project, and a very vocal one at that, had had that idea, what could we expect of those of us in voter-land who do not normally move in developer circles? I suggest, Mr Speaker, that many of us were being seduced by the old chestnut, "Nothing will happen in the way of construction, jobs and tourism if we do not have section 19" - the same bribe that keeps coming forward each time the matter is raised. However, I would like to suggest that those responsible for the management of the ACT, while not being responsible for a totally dishonest approach to the matter of what we could rightly expect in return for the site, certainly left out a fair bit.
It is this factor of only telling half the story that I submit has coloured the debate. Just as it was clear to me that only some of the surveys were used by both sides of the argument to make this case, one could argue that some of the information being provided to support the proposal was only part of the story. Sins of omission are often just as bad as sins committed.
I believe it would be charitable of me if I were to give the Government and some of its advisers an A pass in that area. As my colleague Hector Kinloch might say, "Nice try, but more work and research needed before I am able to give you a pass mark". I am sure he would have said that to any
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .