Page 1282 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 23 August 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
development and redevelopment. It is inappropriate, in fact, for this site to be allowed to vegetate and become decrepit, and I have no arguments with the reasons being advanced for the problems that this delay has caused. I have no doubt that Deputy Chief Minister Whalan is aware that he could solve the problem at the stroke of a pen. However, I have no doubt that he is also aware that, to do so, he would have to ignore the decision of Justice Kelly, and he is therefore seeking to place the odium somewhere else. There is no argument from the Rally that the current lease purpose for the site is outdated and needs to be changed.
It would seem, however, that Concrete Constructions, for some reason, decided to seek to have the matter resolved in the Supreme Court, after it had purchased the site. It could be suggested that the firm is now seeking to have the people of Canberra bail it out of a commercial decision that may not have been the best decision made by this company. Mr Speaker, I think it is appropriate to turn, at this stage, to what in fact could be done on that particular site. I return to the 1989 Civic centre policy plan, which identifies what can be put on that site.
Mr Whalan: Bernard is going to put a school there.
MR JENSEN: It would seem to me that our friends in the BWIU should not be concerned about what is built on the site, but that something is built. Mr Whalan is talking about the need for jobs. The Rally confirms the need for jobs, and it is appropriate, Mr Speaker, that something should be built. It does not necessarily have to be an office block. It can be other aspects. What I can tell you, Mr Speaker, is that it will provide for a large number of items that could be built.
In fact, Mr Whalan is quite correct. I quote from page 54 of the Civic centre Canberra policy plan, which says that offices and professional suites could go on that site. However, Mr Justice Kelly said that that is inappropriate for offices because of the 1984 metropolitan plan. Other items are retail, cafe, bar or restaurant, bank, cooperative society, personal services establishments, consulting rooms, clubs - and the list goes on - church use, place of assembly. It would even be possible, if we wished, to have the place of Assembly constructed on that site. There could be administrative uses, community protection facility, residential, hotel. It would be possible for serviced apartments to be constructed on that particular site if Concrete Constructions were prepared to do that. I am sure, Mr Speaker, that it would be quite capable of doing that in that particular way.
It would be possible for a passenger transport facility to be put on that site, or a car park. Mr Speaker, there are many other things that can be put on that particular site. However, for some reason, it seems that, after making what appears to be a commercial decision that was not one of its
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .