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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 6 Hansard (23 May) . . Page.. 1655 ..

MRS CARNELL (continuing):

In fact, I think I tabled it in this place, so it is very interesting, Mr Speaker. It appears that what really happened here is that those opposite, probably deep down, knew that this was what the ACT needed to do; that the ACT desperately needed to get the Kingston foreshore dump redeveloped up to something that the people of Canberra and tourists could enjoy; but, because it required a decision, it was all too hard. So, although negotiations were, to quote Michael Lee, "continuing under the previous Government", actually deciding to go ahead was something that could not happen until we came to power. At that stage we did decide that a swap between Acton and Kingston was an appropriate approach.

Why did we decide that it was an appropriate approach, Mr Speaker? We decided for some of the reasons that Mr Humphries has already spoken about. The Acton site can be used for nothing other than a site of national significance, or, alternatively, for the purposes that it is now being used for. I found it very interesting to hear Mr Berry's statements. I would like to quote here Mr Berry from 17 February 1994 in the Canberra Weekly. He said:

I don't think anyone has a particular love of the tower ... or any of the rubble around it, and Sylvia Curley House would have to be one of the ugliest buildings I've ever seen.

Mr De Domenico: Is that the same Wayne Berry?

MRS CARNELL: That is Wayne Berry. It seems that Mr Berry, not all that long ago, thought that the tower and all of the rubble around it, and that horribly ugly building next to it, were not up to much.

Mr De Domenico: Perhaps his tastes have changed.

MRS CARNELL: I think it is probably that he is simply no longer in government. What this shows, Mr Speaker, is that Mr Berry, at that stage anyway, did support the redevelopment of Acton Peninsula as a site of national significance, but now that he is in opposition he just cannot bring himself to agree with anything that this Government does. So it must now be a wonderful site; these buildings, all of a sudden, have a new lease of life, and they are not rubble or the ugliest buildings he has ever seen any longer. I think it is a very interesting change of heart from Mr Berry.

Mr Speaker, we have in front of us a report that took over 12 months to put together but that really does not enlighten us at all as to in what direction the Assembly wants us to go. Since the report was brought down we have had Ms McRae say on the record that she thinks that the Kingston redevelopment should go ahead. We have even had the Greens on the record saying that they think the Kingston redevelopment should go ahead. We have Mr Moore on the record saying that the Kingston redevelopment should go ahead. On that basis, it would appear that everyone thinks the Kingston foreshore redevelopment should go ahead. We are very pleased to have that support, and the Kingston foreshore redevelopment will go ahead. I can guarantee to this Assembly that that will happen.

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