Page 1016 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 21 March 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
very successful festival for the ACT and I am delighted to continue to support it. If my support stands in contrast with those opposite, I am very happy, given the feedback from the Canberra community on the Canberra Festival, on Enlighten, to ensure that it remains a key part of our annual event calendar. I will not be deterred from that by the bleatings of the shadow treasurer, who appears to not want to have fun events in our city.
Visitors
MR SPEAKER: Members, just before we proceed, I would like to draw to members’ attention that we are joined in the public gallery today by members of the Canberra Blind Society. I would like to welcome you to the Assembly today and I trust that you enjoy your stay.
Questions without notice
Planning—deconcessionalisation
MS LE COUTEUR: My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Sustainable Development and is in regard to the deconcessionalisation process. I understand that the Brumbies site in Griffith on the old Griffith bowling club is in fact the first site that has undergone the deconcessionalisation process, including the public interest test, under the current planning legislation. Minister, what government consideration was given to whether or not there was any better public use of the Brumbies site?
MR CORBELL: I thank Ms Le Couteur for the question. As to whether or not the Brumbies site at Griffith was the first site where the deconcessionalisation process occurred, I would have to take that on notice. I am simply not familiar with whether or not that is true.
But in relation to whether or not the site should be used for some other public use, that assumes, of course, that it is used for some public use at the moment. Whilst it certainly has a level of amenity which is enjoyed by the public, it is important to restate that the site is held under a privately owned lease and is not a lease which has some form of entitlement to public use. It is a private lease with particular conditions attached to it.
The issue of whether the site should be used for some other purpose, therefore, was an issue, of course, that was raised during the recent inquiry that Ms Le Couteur was a part of. Ms Le Couteur asked some questions about that during the inquiry process into the proposed variation to the territory plan for that site. I can simply reiterate what I said to her then, which is that the government does not consider that it was in the public interest to acquire the site and pay quite a substantial sum of money to use the site for some other unidentified and unknown purpose. The government’s view is that it was not necessary for the government to acquire the site, so we did not.
MS LE COUTEUR: A supplementary.
MR SPEAKER: Yes, Ms Le Couteur.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video