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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 3 Hansard (7 March) . . Page.. 587 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

worth of development is to take place on this site. It is a major undertaking. It is one that has the capacity to develop considerable employment and considerable business opportunities throughout the Territory, and to sustain the development industry in a consistent manner over an extended period in ways by which we usually expect the Commonwealth to assist our development industry.

I note from the submissions that the Property Council raised some concerns about the costing and the expense of some of the infrastructure works required for the project. On an associated issue, the MBA also raised the issue of ensuring that local contractors had an opportunity to get work on the project and that it be let in parcels which enabled them the potential to win some of the contracts.

Mr Speaker, first I want to deal with the comments of the Property Council. The Property Council argued in their submissions that the work of reclaiming part of the land and creating the Basin in a more formal sense as a circle, or part of a circle, rather than the very informal edge that exists at the moment is very expensive work and should be reconsidered. I am pleased to hear the confirmation from the Kingston Foreshore Authority that we got in the submissions to the committee last Friday that it can be costed. It does add up financially and it is good to hear those reassurances.

On those grounds, Mr Speaker, I have to say that the Property Council submission, if accepted, would undermine one of the principal elements of the winning design, which was to highlight Griffin's finish of that Basin of the lake by creating a formal interface along the lake foreshore. Mr Speaker, those works are expensive, but if we were to take the Property Council's view we would never have built Canberra in the first place. It would have been too expensive. But it is important that that area of the development is built. So I am pleased to see that the Foreshore Authority accepts that that is an important part of the design and it should take place.

Secondly, Mr Speaker, the comments from the MBA are about the contract arrangements. These technically are part of the draft variation, but I think the MBA certainly do have a case to put to government that wherever possible local employment is a priority and that the opportunity for local engineering firms and construction firms to bid for work is not hindered by the Government's contracting out or tendering out arrangements. The real concern, Mr Speaker, and it is a legitimate one, is that if the Government lets the site as one tender the smaller engineering firms in Canberra will not have the opportunity to bid because they simply do not have the personnel or the resources to do really large projects. If the development is cut up into smaller chunks and that is a process that does ensure that the Territory still gets value for money and the program is completed in an effective way, then I would urge the Government to consider that because it will favour those local construction and engineering firms.

Mr Speaker, there is a lot to be welcomed in this proposal. It is a proposal which is very well thought through. I should conclude by saying that the issues about height were very well explained by Mr Lowe from the Kingston Foreshore Authority. Due to the topography of the land, any buildings going over the height of the powerhouse which would be four storeys would be restricted to lower storeys anyway. If the land is slightly higher above the powerhouse building then buildings cannot be four storeys. They have

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