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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2010 Week 08 Hansard (Thursday, 19 August 2010) . . Page.. 3647 ..

accepted, it would be difficult for the government to just budget fund $100 million. If there were options for associated development, why would one not seek to cover the cost of that $100 million investment in the Yarralumla brickworks and environs through associated revenues that could be achieved through a genuine, broad-scale, community-minded, generally accepted, adaptive reuse?

The issue of how to protect, preserve and use heritage such as the brickworks is a major challenge for the community. It is a challenge which this community took on and accepted in relation to the powerhouse, with the establishment of the glassworks. I have to say that the up-front injection of $11 million to $12 million there was budget funded. But I do hope over time, as a long-term investment, the glassworks will generate a revenue. I believe, in the context of Treasury, tourism and other issues, it is a conversation worth having.

But to suggest, Ms Le Couteur, as your question poses, I have given some direction, I do not believe it is the case. But because you have raised it, I will check the nature of my instructions in relation to the review that is currently in place.

MR SPEAKER: Supplementary question, Ms Le Couteur?

MS LE COUTEUR: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Minister, the LDA on its website has said that it is seeking to establish if the brickworks and environs project could be cost neutral. Does that mean that all the proceeds from any new development in Yarralumla would be spent on the brickworks?

MR STANHOPE: I think that does better explain the nature of the process that is being pursued rather than, as was presumed in your opening question, me giving a direction. I think it is a reasonable question to ask, depending on the options that are pursued.

It depends so much on the outcome of the consultation and the option that is ultimately chosen. If, through the consultation, the community feedback and the reaction of people in this place, the level of political and community will is for a redevelopment of the site, there will be a determination by the government of the option that we will pursue.

But in response to your question, again, it is just so hypothetical that it is difficult for me to answer. I go back to the first option. The first option proposes spending $7 million to ensure appropriate heritage protection. It might be that that is all we do, in which case the question you ask really does not arise. It might be that we will end up spending just $7 million and we will fix the buildings up so that they are there in perpetuity but with no particular purpose or adaptive re-use.

My hope and desire is that, through this process and with the support of people in this place and the community, we will find an appropriate level of re-use that gives the brickworks a continuing life at the heart of this city. That is my hope. I think that the proposals that are put up give us plenty of food for thought. My instinct is to support a fairly expansive future use for the brickworks, but I would expect that, depending on which of those options we accept—once again, if we were to accept option 4 in its

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