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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 8 Hansard (27 June) . . Page.. 2317 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

The change of purpose that was lodged was for a health facility on that site. The first thing about it is that this change of lease purpose, which I understand is likely to go through today, does appear to me to be - in fact, I will argue it is - inconsistent with the Territory Plan. I would suggest that the Minister have that very carefully reviewed before it does go through. The site is currently for community use. Community use, by definition in the Territory Plan, includes a child-care centre, a community activity centre, a community theatre, a cultural facility, but includes the words "health facility". That would appear, on face value, to be consistent. However, the term "health facility" is then defined to mean a run of things, including a baby health clinic, a doctor's surgery, a health centre, a medical centre. The actual change of lease purpose is to allow a pathology laboratory, which is certainly not mentioned there. That is the first reason why I suggest that this is inconsistent with the Territory Plan.

The second thing is that the objectives of this policy actually override the specific definitions. Objective 1(g) of the policy, as set out at page 190 of the Territory Plan, states:

To protect entertainment, accommodation and leisure uses from competition from higher order commercial uses.

If you looked at the proposed plan for that site you would see very clearly that higher order facilities are proposed, which would undermine entertainment, accommodation and leisure use. I have the plan with me and am happy to share that with Mr Humphries, should he so wish.

The other issue that I think is particularly important is that when a similar application for lease and development was made in the mid-1980s there was a cost of some $750,000 in 1984 terms for parking. In this particular case, however, there is a large area next to the Oasis set aside for parking which actually is Territory land. One begins to wonder at what point we allow our leases, our land, to be used in this way and to what extent we think that money should be taken back to the Territory coffers. Had we had a land management authority, had we established a land management authority, we would see an entirely different approach, because the whole concept of the land management authority, the authority's raison d'etre, is to raise revenue for the Territory and to get the maximum amount of money out of the leasehold system for the Territory, instead of having decisions along these lines. This is the reason why I argue that we need to have this separate authority.

I am conscious of the fact that there is a dissenting view from Mr Kaine and Ms McRae, which is why I have decided today to give this particular example that I am concerned about. I would certainly ask the Minister to look very carefully at that particular site and put a note through to his department so that a brake is put on it today. (Extension of time granted) It is also interesting that on the back of one of these applications for a change of lease is a note that says: "To go through to" - I will not use the bureaucrat's name, because I think that is entirely inappropriate - "as soon as possible. Urgent, and to be processed in eight weeks", as directed per another public servant.

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