Mr McADAM - 2002-05-21
I understand that the government has accepted a proposal from Australian Property Projects for the redevelopment of the Cawood Court site in Alice Springs. Is the minister satisfied with the conduct of the selection process and the specifications of the proposed development?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, my question is to, sorry, my answer …
Members interjecting.
Mr AH KIT: Well, you are too dumb to write intellectual questions. The public listening to this want to hear responses from government ministers who are proactive, and if you cannot write them, then we have to get some of ours to ask some nice, sensible questions.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: I would like to hear the answer to this question. I am sure many of the Central Australian people would, so minister, on with the answer.
Mr AH KIT: They are so provocative. Cabinet approved the sale and redevelopment of the Cawood Court site on 19 October 2001. The assessment criteria established by Cabinet included the balance of three very crucial points. These were price, the enhancement of the neighbourhood and economic benefit to Alice Springs. There was significant publicity surrounding the Cabinet decision, including a press release issued by the former minister for Housing, my colleague, Kon Vatskalis. There were also letterbox drops to the residents in the surrounding areas of Cawood Court. In all of the publicity, the government’s clear intent was that the complete demolition of the Cawood Court site was not an option, not an option at all.
Madam Speaker, you yourself would be aware of the publicity this decision received in Alice Springs, and there should have been no doubt that the government had made a decision to overturn the former CLP government’s plans to bulldoze Cawood Court. Instead, we wanted to see proposals for the redevelopment of the existing complex.
The member for Greatorex is quoted in the Centralian Advocate on 26 October last year, saying that he could not see any developer moving to knock down the existing buildings. However, I am disappointed, and this could clear up something for the member for Greatorex. I am disappointed that subsequent advertisements and documentation that was prepared by my department contained an error, in that it called for expressions of interest for the refurbishment and/or demolition and redevelopment of Cawood Court.
Dr Lim: That’s right.
Mr AH KIT: Well, hang on, you will learn something. Reference should have been made to the fact that only part demolition would have been acceptable. I have discussed this with the acting CEO of my department and requested that he ensure that there are improved and appropriate quality control measures implemented within the department. Notwithstanding this error, let me make two points crystal clear. Given the level of publicity in Alice Springs surrounding the decision, nobody should have been left in any doubt whatsoever that a proposal involving total demolition would never be successful. Any proposal involving total demolition was inevitably going to fail on price because of the costs of the demolition and the loss of value of existing buildings.
I now turn to the successful proposal, and I should just emphasise that the selection process was conducted by my department, and it was the department that had carriage for making the final decision. That said, I must say that I am absolutely delighted with the decision which has been made by them. The sale was awarded to the Australian Property Projects Group. They were assessed as meeting all the selection criteria and providing the best balance between price as well as enhancement of the neighbourhood and the economic benefit to the town. The Australian Property Projects proposal will enhance the neighbourhood as well as providing a raft of new housing opportunities for Alice Springs.
Finally, there has been some criticism that a South Australian company has been selected. The fact is that APP have significant property investments, both in Alice Springs and the Top End. They have operated in the Territory for some 12 years. They have over 100 staff. In terms of economic development in the Territory, one has to wonder, how long does a company have to stay here, establish themselves, continue to compete in the market place and provide millions of dollars to the Territory economy.
Unlike the former minister in the former government, we heard it many, many times before, they claim to have run an open, honest, accountable and transparent government. We, as ministers, will not interfere in the process that the department has in terms of how they make their selections. I am more than satisfied that the decision taken by the department for the Australian Property Projects redevelopment of Cawood Court was definitely the right one.
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, my question is to, sorry, my answer …
Members interjecting.
Mr AH KIT: Well, you are too dumb to write intellectual questions. The public listening to this want to hear responses from government ministers who are proactive, and if you cannot write them, then we have to get some of ours to ask some nice, sensible questions.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: I would like to hear the answer to this question. I am sure many of the Central Australian people would, so minister, on with the answer.
Mr AH KIT: They are so provocative. Cabinet approved the sale and redevelopment of the Cawood Court site on 19 October 2001. The assessment criteria established by Cabinet included the balance of three very crucial points. These were price, the enhancement of the neighbourhood and economic benefit to Alice Springs. There was significant publicity surrounding the Cabinet decision, including a press release issued by the former minister for Housing, my colleague, Kon Vatskalis. There were also letterbox drops to the residents in the surrounding areas of Cawood Court. In all of the publicity, the government’s clear intent was that the complete demolition of the Cawood Court site was not an option, not an option at all.
Madam Speaker, you yourself would be aware of the publicity this decision received in Alice Springs, and there should have been no doubt that the government had made a decision to overturn the former CLP government’s plans to bulldoze Cawood Court. Instead, we wanted to see proposals for the redevelopment of the existing complex.
The member for Greatorex is quoted in the Centralian Advocate on 26 October last year, saying that he could not see any developer moving to knock down the existing buildings. However, I am disappointed, and this could clear up something for the member for Greatorex. I am disappointed that subsequent advertisements and documentation that was prepared by my department contained an error, in that it called for expressions of interest for the refurbishment and/or demolition and redevelopment of Cawood Court.
Dr Lim: That’s right.
Mr AH KIT: Well, hang on, you will learn something. Reference should have been made to the fact that only part demolition would have been acceptable. I have discussed this with the acting CEO of my department and requested that he ensure that there are improved and appropriate quality control measures implemented within the department. Notwithstanding this error, let me make two points crystal clear. Given the level of publicity in Alice Springs surrounding the decision, nobody should have been left in any doubt whatsoever that a proposal involving total demolition would never be successful. Any proposal involving total demolition was inevitably going to fail on price because of the costs of the demolition and the loss of value of existing buildings.
I now turn to the successful proposal, and I should just emphasise that the selection process was conducted by my department, and it was the department that had carriage for making the final decision. That said, I must say that I am absolutely delighted with the decision which has been made by them. The sale was awarded to the Australian Property Projects Group. They were assessed as meeting all the selection criteria and providing the best balance between price as well as enhancement of the neighbourhood and the economic benefit to the town. The Australian Property Projects proposal will enhance the neighbourhood as well as providing a raft of new housing opportunities for Alice Springs.
Finally, there has been some criticism that a South Australian company has been selected. The fact is that APP have significant property investments, both in Alice Springs and the Top End. They have operated in the Territory for some 12 years. They have over 100 staff. In terms of economic development in the Territory, one has to wonder, how long does a company have to stay here, establish themselves, continue to compete in the market place and provide millions of dollars to the Territory economy.
Unlike the former minister in the former government, we heard it many, many times before, they claim to have run an open, honest, accountable and transparent government. We, as ministers, will not interfere in the process that the department has in terms of how they make their selections. I am more than satisfied that the decision taken by the department for the Australian Property Projects redevelopment of Cawood Court was definitely the right one.
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016