Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . PDF . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1995 Week 01 Hansard (Wednesday, 3 May 1995) . . Page.. 148 ..

We are already talking to people like the Architects Institute and so on. A number of people who have had quite substantial experience in areas like international competitions are giving us input at this stage. We have approached the Federal Government for them to be part of this whole approach because the NCPA’s expertise will be invaluable. We see this as very important. When we progress to having at least base guidelines for the international competition, based upon the sorts of things I have just spoken about, we would be very pleased to have input from the whole Assembly and, for that matter, the community.

MR CONNOLLY: I ask a supplementary question. Noting your comment that this will be limited only by the imagination, before your announcement what projections were you given about the future demand for housing, retail and commercial space in the ACT, particularly in the South Canberra and Kingston area?

MRS CARNELL: The whole basis of a competition is coming up - - - 

Mr Berry: “We do not know”.

Mr Connolly: No projections; just imagination.

MRS CARNELL: Quite seriously, to determine before we start the percentage of residential and the percentage of commercial for a project that will probably take in excess of 10 years from start to finish would simply be ridiculous. These sorts of issues are based upon needs at the time, obviously. Look at the way that the old Expo site has been handled in Brisbane, at how Darling Harbour has been handled in Sydney, and the Melbourne redevelopment. They show you the sorts of things that can be done that are very exciting for the community, for tourists and so on.

To get tied down in areas like just how much commercial space should be part of this program before we even go for the competition would be simply ridiculous. What should be part of the stipulation is that we do not want high rise development on the lake foreshore, we do not want the height of buildings that would be expected, and so on. The rest of it must be able to be subject to negotiations. This really does show the previous Government's attitude to consultation generally. Their view is that you start off with a preconceived idea of what you can have and then attempt to make the whole thing work around that. That is simply ridiculous. We can be much more innovative than that if we try.

Kingston Foreshore

MS TUCKER: I would like to ask a question of the Chief Minister on the same topic. If there is a joint venture, would the interested parties and the private sector take responsibility for the assessment of contamination or would that be something that the ACT Government took on first? This also would be relevant to the design competition. Particular types of development may be more appropriate than others, depending on the nature of the contamination. For example, you might find that residential use is ruled out absolutely because of the type of contamination. When there are families living on a site

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . PDF . . . .