Page 1426 - Week 05 - Thursday, 13 May 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
But I have to say at this stage that I have had nothing that would really induce me to make an inquiry on what happened there - a process that was carefully taken through the Assembly's relevant committee and that ran into no trouble in that committee.
I have had one continuing interest in the development of section 22, and that is the quality of design of the proposed building. On one of the very rare occasions that I actually spoke to the proponents I said very strongly to them that we required that the building be of the best possible design. Members also know that the way the street runs is not the best way if you want very good solar orientation. I believe that the subsequent plan that came through was as good a solution to the problems of that street as we could expect. Indeed, I believe that the energy efficiency - and I have not compared it in detail with buildings at Kingston - would be superior to that of most other buildings in Canberra.
I believe that the streetscape is also more than acceptable; I think it is quite good. I have had a continuing interest in that development, and I have been expressing my view on it as well as the views of many in the community. I understand - and I have had nothing official on this - that maybe there will be further proposals, maybe the matter will go back to the drawing board, and perhaps I can say something about that shortly.
Mr Moore asked me a question about a recent appointee to the Floriade board and whether the person was also involved in a breach of lease at Hume. Let me tell you that I was not aware of that particular connection, although I knew that there was a general connection with Cannons. But it is my understanding that that lease at Hume was one of the cases where the leasehold people in my department have taken action to prevent illegal trading.
Mr Moore: Except that the lease is still being breached at the moment in spite of that.
MR WOOD: Yes, but I will check further on that and make sure that I am quite accurate in what I say to you, Mr Moore. Finally, Mr Moore asked about our competence to return to land development, and the answer is - - -
Mr Moore: It is just that your previous questioner did not ask you that part of the question.
MR WOOD: He did not need to, because it goes without saying, I think. It certainly is the case that we are competent to return to that situation in the very carefully planned way that I have been indicating today and have indicated earlier. I am sure that Mr Moore supports us in that approach and is simply having a bit of a dig in his question. We are competent to do so. Obviously we are going to do it very carefully, because it is a project or a whole undertaking that requires very careful organisation and no small amount of money to fund. Obviously we need to be careful. We have the people to do it. As I indicated, we can take on board by way of contract the people who can do that. The outcome, Mr Moore, you can be sure, will be excellent.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .