Page 2417 - Week 11 - Thursday, 2 November 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
which could also contribute to community facilities.
In view of the development conditions for block 12, section 19, city, which make it mandatory for a hotel with a minimum of 250 rooms as well as a casino without a fixed size but "likely to be smaller than Adelaide's", does this mean that the Government has completely disregarded this recommendation of the select committee, which would have allowed other options for the whole of the area between Vernon Circle and London Circuit to be developed in a coordinated fashion, like some of the proposals that have surfaced in recent weeks?
MR WHALAN: The short answer is no, the Government has not abandoned that prospect and opportunity, Mr Speaker. The expressions of interest which were invited in relation to the development which seems to be so abhorrent to the Residents Rally party did invite the potential investors in that site to come forward with two types of tender. The first is obligatory; they have to submit a conforming tender. In the ministerial statement, which is listed on the notice paper as item No. 7, details were given of this two-tender approach. Every firm or potential investor must present a conforming tender which will contain a bottom figure for the acquisition of the site.
They were invited to submit as well, if they wished - and this is not at all obligatory - as an alternative, a non-conforming tender, and that non-conforming tender in no way limits what the proposed development could include. The only constraint in relation to that would be to comply with the planning requirements and the planning policy for the area.
So it would be quite feasible for a non-conforming tender to include an element for the development of the cultural facilities off the specific site of section 19. There is no constraint whatsoever on what the non-conforming tender could contain. It might, for example, contain a proposal that the site be given free and that in return they would build a $100m hospital on the Acton Peninsula for the citizens of the ACT. That could fall into the category of the non-conforming tender. There is no constraint. So that would meet the point which I think has been raised by Mr Jensen.
MR JENSEN: I ask a supplementary question, Mr Speaker. I take it from the Minister's answer that, if one of those non-conforming tenders provides an opportunity to remove the casino and the hotel off that particular site, the Government would consider that proposal.
Mr Collaery: Or screen it out.
MR WHALAN: Mr Collaery yelled out "scream it out" or something. I do not know that it is a football match, but
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .