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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 14 Hansard (11 December) . . Page.. 4715 ..

MRS CARNELL (continuing):

that he did not want to stop the Government going out and seeking expressions of interest, looking for smart and innovative ideas for a very important site; that what he did not want the Government to do - which, by the way, the Government would never have done - was make a commitment to sell or dispose of the particular building or, for that matter, the QEII site either, without coming back to the Assembly. In fact, we would certainly be wanting input on the QEII site particularly and any major redevelopment of the Health Building site. We would want input from as many people as is appropriate, Mr Speaker.

So really, with that change of words, the motion is very much in line with the approach that the Government has taken. The Government is not in the business here of getting rid of services. We have made that very clear in the expressions of interest document. But what the Government will continue to do is look for innovative ways by which we can go down the path of redevelopment or development in Canberra in the future.

I cannot remember whether it was Mr Moore or Mr Berry who made the point that there is a site very close to that one which has been a hole in the ground for a while. That is true, Mr Speaker. So, it might turn out that the level of interest is not all that high. But, until we have asked, we will never know. Interestingly, we have had a number of people who have come to see us about this particular site with some very smart ideas which, if they come to fruition, I think this Assembly would be very pleased about. We see the site as linking the university campus area with Civic. We see it as potentially a very interesting site for different styles of accommodation. Those are some ideas. So, again, an expression of interest approach enables people to, I suppose, put their brains into gear and come up with things that are in the interests of the people of Canberra. It is the approach that I hope the Assembly will support.

Expressions of interest, I think, are a good way to go in the future. It is just a great pity, Mr Speaker, that Mr Berry did not get a copy of the expressions of interest documentation and look at the documentation upon which his motion was actually based, which would have told him immediately that the health services were safe, which would have told him immediately that there was no commitment from the Government to sell or do anything else to the Health Building, and which would have told him absolutely that there would need to be mandatory preliminary assessments in most circumstances for these public situations. Mr Speaker, if he had done that, we could have saved lots of taxpayers' money and we would not have had to have this debate at all. But, as usual, Mr Berry decided to take what is a straight political approach to an issue that could simply and easily have been sorted out by his reading the document.

MR MOORE (3.53): Mr Speaker, when I rose to speak on the motion moved by Mr Berry, I made it clear that I believed that the wording of the amendment would not prevent the Government from continuing with its expressions of interest, but that is where it ended. Mrs Carnell, through her office, was kind enough to send a copy of the amendment to me at lunchtime. Therefore, I had time to think about the ramifications. I believe that the amendment actually will take it further than what I was saying. As far as I am concerned - I am very comfortable about saying this, and I am very comfortable that this is the ground upon which I support the motion - it does not stop Mrs Carnell getting those expressions of interest in and distributing them as an ideas system. Therefore, from my perspective, the amendment is redundant. Under those circumstances, it would be

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