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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 10 Hansard (28 August) . . Page.. 3360 ..

MR SMYTH: Negotiations continue between the government and Impulse, between Impulse and Qantas and between Impulse, Qantas and the Canberra airport, so there are matters to be resolved.

Let me say that what this government was after when it went into the deal with Impulse was to create jobs in the ACT, to get investment in the ACT, to secure a new industry for the ACT and to build an international airport for the future. Both Qantas and Impulse have assured me that they would still like to achieve all of that and meet the milestones. Some of it is dependent upon further negotiations. I have had meetings with them recently and will continue to push that they meet the milestones or, if we have to, we will ask for the money back.

Kingston foreshore development

MS TUCKER: My question is directed to the Chief Minister in his role as the minister responsible for the Kingston Foreshore Development Authority. Chief Minister, you may be aware that there is a small park outside the old Government Printing Office on Wentworth Avenue which contains six 70-year-old Himalayan cypress trees. These trees were identified as having heritage value in a 1996 heritage assessment of the Kingston foreshores. However, heritage attention at that time was focused on the old power house precinct and no action was taken about the trees.

In 1998 a tree expert, Robert Boden, drew to the attention of the authority the significance of these trees and the area was fenced off to prevent parking under them. In the middle of this year, attention was again drawn to the significance of the trees and the Heritage Council commissioned an assessment by Professor Ken Taylor. He recommended that the trees should be immediately listed in the interim Heritage Register. In the meantime, however, the Kingston Foreshore Development Authority proceeded with the seeking of tenders for the first stage of the development and the chosen tender involves placing buildings where the trees are.

If the trees are listed on the Heritage Register and are required to be retained, the government may face compensation claims from the winning tenderer. On the other hand, if the trees are removed, a part of the foreshore's heritage and aesthetic value will be lost. Can you please explain to the Assembly how you will resolve this dilemma?

MR HUMPHRIES: The government is aware of a number of trees on the site of the present stage 1A of the Kingston foreshore development and it has had some discussion about those trees. My understanding of the history of this matter very recently is slightly different from that of Ms Tucker. My understanding is that the issue of the heritage value of the trees was examined some time ago and there was no view at that stage about their having any particular heritage value. That is the advice I have received.

I understand that the proposal to heritage-list the trees has come much more recently and very late in a stage which is focused on the release of land at stage 1A for the development of that land for the purposes of the Kingston foreshore development getting under way. The government is concerned about the prospect of that process being now derailed by the existence of those trees. I understand that the matter is before the Heritage Council at the present time, that an application has been made to the Heritage

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