Page 2041 - Week 08 - Tuesday, 5 June 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Kelly's decision, in dismissing the Federal appeal, has left it exactly as the original application: 14,000 square metres of offices plus another 2,000 square metres. So that is what in terms of a work force? Operatively, one takes a figure of probably five workers to 100 square metres. So we are talking about roughly 700 spaces, adding 700 or so workers to the 28,000 now working in Civic. We have a response by the Government that says, "It is okay; we are not going to put any Territory workers in there and we are going to ask the Commonwealth not to put any of its workers in there".
This Government has asked the Commonwealth a lot about money and it has not responded to that. Why would the Commonwealth respond to this? That is just simply head-in-the-sand stuff, and those opposite know it.
Mr Kaine: It is in the National Capital Plan, and you know that, too.
MR MOORE: Of course I do, but this is just simply head-in-the-sand stuff. After years of encouraging speculative office building in Civic - and about 60 have been built in recent times - the NCDC admitted in 1987 that congestion and delay showed that some roads had already reached the limit of their capacity. It found that, unlike shops, hotels and community buildings, offices created the most severe problems for peak period transport and parking.
The current 1989 Civic Centre Policy Plan offers any number of development and redevelopment opportunities in Civic, enough to accommodate upwards of about 70,000. That figure is well beyond the planned limit of Civic, which is about 27,000 as stipulated in the gazetted Metropolitan Policy Plan - and you know that, too. The 1989 Civic Centre Policy Plan, despite its irresponsibly generous opportunities for office redevelopment, says that there is a need to conserve scarce resources for uses for which there are clear public benefits. The Supreme Court seemed to agree when it turned down the office block proposal, holding that it would not be in the public interest, that the whole community would suffer.
The environmental assessment reports - these reports that you have so happily relied on - are careful not to claim that there will be any public benefits, economic or otherwise, from another office block, only that the adverse environmental effect would be marginal. The same could be said for each of the last 60 office buildings and the next 60.
One of the great ironies about this report is a letter at the back from David Simmons, Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, referring to Mrs Kelly saying that there is no need for any further action under the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974. What a turnaround! Mrs Kelly, as chair of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the ACT when it allowed a
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .