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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 6 Hansard (23 May) . . Page.. 1649 ..

Mrs Carnell: What do they have now?

MR WOOD: Well, they do not have a big debt around their ears or a big white elephant in a few years' time. The Chief Minister absolutely avoided that issue of cost. Let me state it again clearly: It is now acknowledged, but it was not then, by the Chief Minister that, if the cost of doing the work was handed over to the developer, the developer would pay much less for the site; so, we pay for it. In fact, I would not have been surprised at that time if we would have had to pay a developer to do the work. Let me comment on the toxicity on the site and the clean-up that was known at the time. There were vague reports about it. There have been some specific reports, but it was the expectation all along that there was going to be an area that had to be cleaned up. It was never clearly defined and still has not been clearly defined.

There is something that has been overlooked in this debate, and that is the powerhouse. It is heritage listed; it is a great building; and we are going to keep it. I have not heard anybody yet mention what it is going to cost to turn that into a serviceable building. Again, the developer would pay for it.

Mr Humphries: That is right; so what does it matter what it costs?

MR WOOD: But he is going to take the value of paying for it off what he offers for that site. By the time you add up the cost of clearing the site of contamination and the cost of doing up the Kingston powerhouse, you will be hard pressed to get someone to give you any money at all for the site, especially in the current economic circumstances.

These are the problems that I briefly faced at that time. I quite sensibly said, "Well, that time will come". That time will come when Canberra's population is a good deal larger than it was then and larger than it is now. When there is some pressure building up for retail space, housing and the like, that is the time for it to happen. We did not need the Chief Minister clicking her fingers with a wonderful idea and saying, "Let us take this up now; let us do this; let us get it going".

I have not mentioned the negative aspects - the poor deal; the additional component in negotiating the give-away of the Acton site, which was part of the poor deal; and the poor outcome there, which was reported on by the committee. It is clear that the Chief Minister is catching up with these things as time goes by. If we move through, if there were no obstacles, I believe that the Government would not now put that out to tender. If everything had been clear, would you put that out to tender today?

Mrs Carnell: For the competition, yes.

MR WOOD: No, for building on the site.

Mrs Carnell: But we have to do the competition first, Bill.

MR WOOD: Great! Have a competition for what? You are trying to present a symbol that might express what your Government wants to do.

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