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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 14 Hansard (11 December) . . Page.. 4712 ..

MRS CARNELL (continuing):

Mr Speaker, what we are looking for here is something innovative, something smart, something that will mean that Canberra and the Civic-university area will gain in the whole process.

Mr Berry, this morning, commented that somehow this was about the Government throwing out health services. Again I quote from page 8, Sale Conditions, in the expressions of interest document. It says, again, in black and white:

In preparing proposals for the Health Building, applicants are advised that the clinical services now located on the ground, first and second floors are to remain operational until alternative facilities are provided elsewhere -

if they have to be -

For the purpose of this Expression of Interest, applicants should assume a minimum of 18 months [will be required] to vacate the ground, first and second floors.

Mr Berry, obviously, being such an expert, will know that all of our health services - all of the ones that he was speaking about earlier - that are in this building are on the ground, first or second floors. This document makes it very clear that this is not about getting rid of health services. In fact, it states quite categorically that that cannot happen, based upon this decision.

Mr Speaker, it is also really important to realise - I go to page 10 of the document, under section 5, Criteria - the sorts of criteria that will be used by the assessment panel in evaluating the proposals. No. (i) is "the range of uses proposed and their contribution to the revitalisation of the area" - for the sorts of things we might be able to do and how they might add to the whole area of Civic and to the university link that that area has. No. (ii) is "benefits of the proposal to the community and impact on the local economy". So, they are two things that the assessment panel must look at. No. (iii) is "architectural and urban design quality of proposed development and how it relates to adjoining buildings and infrastructure". So, they are the sorts of things that you would hope an assessment panel would look at. They are not my words, Mr Speaker, but the words of the document that, obviously, Mr Berry had not quite got around to reading.

In fact, one thing that is really interesting is that it goes on at page 13 to make this point in terms of redevelopment proposals:

The attention of applicants is drawn to Section 2.2 of Part B2A of the Territory Plan which requires a Mandatory Preliminary Assessment of proposals involving a depletion of community facilities within B2A Civic Centre.

Mr Speaker, if there was any sort of depletion of community facilities whatsoever, we would immediately have to go to a mandatory preliminary assessment of the proposals as set out under the Territory Plan. In fact, we go to the extent of giving people who are interested in putting forward a proposal that part of the Territory Plan at Attachment D.

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