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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 6 Hansard (23 May) . . Page.. 1657 ..

MRS CARNELL (continuing):

For the life of me, I cannot see why swapping a site worth $1 for a site that has a quite large value, in terms of not just the amount of money we can get from selling the land on the site but the number of jobs that we can create in the building phase and in the longer term through facilities on the site, is a bad deal. Obviously, the contamination issue has to be addressed. Mr Speaker, I find this whole contamination issue fascinating. You would think we were arguing about a development that was going to cause contamination. (Extension of time granted) Mr Speaker, you would think that we were discussing here - shock, horror! - a redevelopment of Kingston foreshore that had the potential to cause contamination on a pristine site, but this whole debate has been about cleaning up supposed contamination already there. You would not think you would argue that at all. You would assume that everyone would say, "If there is any contamination there we should clean it up. We should not leave contamination there with the potential to leach into the lake, or any of the other things that could be the case if there is any there".

For the life of me, I do not understand why the Greens, particularly, have such a bee in their bonnet about a proposal that would clean up a site that may have contamination associated with it; why the Greens, or, for that matter, those in this Assembly, would have a problem with looking at a plan that would allow the people of the ACT, tourists and others to enjoy the natural facilities and the natural aspects of our beautiful city by using the lake foreshore in a way that is, obviously, environmentally sustainable and appropriate.

I find it extraordinary that we would be having an argument about a proposal to fix up contamination, to clean up a dump, to use an area of Canberra that is beautiful but that very few people can enjoy at this stage simply because of the physical layout of the place, and a proposal that can produce significant jobs in a city that desperately needs significant jobs. That is what we seem to be arguing about - but, when I say "arguing", we have everybody saying that Kingston should go ahead. Well, Kingston cannot go ahead unless the land swap goes ahead, Mr Speaker. The land swap will not go ahead until we sort out the issues of contamination, so nobody should have a problem. We all should say, "Fine, let us go for it and let us get this show on the road". Mr Speaker, before I finish, I would like to table the press release from Michael Lee. I will quote again the particular part of that press release. It said:

Negotiations on the land swap had been progressing with the Follett Government since last October and were finalised with the current Government this week.

Mr Speaker, what is this all about, except the Opposition just not being able to agree with this Government even if this whole approach started under them?

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