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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 14 Hansard (10 December) . . Page.. 5128 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

organisations provide a range of services, the government has to make a decision about whether they all need to be accommodated in that new building.

The provision of appropriate space in Civic was determined following a preliminary assessment under the land act. Twelve submissions were received in relation to that preliminary assessment, including a submission from the ACT Council of Cultural and Community Organisations. On 22 June 2001, following consideration of that preliminary assessment, it was determined that no further assessment was necessary. There has been a wide-ranging assessment about what sort of space is required and about what the impact of the development will be, including the impact on the provision of community facilities. That is all part of the preliminary assessment process.

It is wrong for opposition members to assert that there has not been a wide-ranging, comprehensive and detailed debate in relation to this project. It is wrong for them to suggest that there is not enough community facility space in Canberra. I refer members to the list of community services that I read out earlier. It is wrong for opposition members to assert that all organisations that are currently located in other parts of Canberra should be located in the new Griffin Centre.

First and foremost, we must ensure that existing tenants at the Griffin Centre are accommodated in the new building. Second, if additional space is available, we must ensure that the tenants are the most appropriate organisations to occupy a building in a central location. The government does not support this motion simply because it will further delay the establishment of an important community facility in Canberra-a facility that is desperately needed to replace an old and ageing building. The Griffin Centre project, which is already overdue, needs to be built.

MRS DUNNE (5.04): Liberal Party opposition members did not intend to support this motion but, as a result of earlier discussions, we circulated some amendments that will make it possible for us to do so. It was necessary to come to a compromise on this issue because of the important matters raised by Ms Tucker. We had trouble with the wording in the original motion and were unable to support it. The minister quite rightly said earlier that we should not hold up the building of the Griffin Centre.

Those who contributed to debate earlier delved into the history of the Griffin Centre. It is important to note that there has been a long process of consultation. However, some of the processes have been flawed. During the hearings of the Standing Committee on Planning and Environment into the draft variation-the number of which escapes me at this time-I was made aware of the fact that there were discussions between the government and the developer and the government and users of the Griffin Centre. Under successive governments, government officials discouraged discussion between the builder and the people who were using that building. It came to our attention that this had been an ongoing problem.

As a result of the hearings of the Standing Committee on Planning and Environment, the proponents and the lessees of the Griffin Centre had their first meetings to determine what was required. At those meetings much of the misunderstanding and mistrust were dispelled. However, a number of community groups still require accommodation. Ms Tucker pointed out that some of those community groups provide much-needed

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