Page 262 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 30 May 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
old Parliament House would, however, be an inappropriate home for this ACT Assembly. I have to say that personally - and I speak personally in this speech - I regret that approach. My apprehension was heightened somewhat by the reasons the Chief Minister gave for not believing that the old Parliament House would be a suitable location for this Assembly. She said that the building was too large. Of course it is too large. I need hardly point out to the Government that this building is also too large for the ACT Assembly. We occupy less than half of the floor space in this building. The answer, both in this building and in the old Parliament House, should that be possible, would be to use only part of the building, and the museum of constitutional history could still more than amply be accommodated in that building, as well as ourselves.
Mr Kaine: We could be part of the museum.
MR HUMPHRIES: We could indeed, as my learned leader says, be part of the museum. What better and more apt connection between a living parliament and a museum of constitutional history. The Chief Minister said that the cost is prohibitive. The cost is an excellent criterion, and I support that - which is why I believe that we should move to the old Parliament House. The Chief Minister is well aware that the cost of hiring this building is $670 a square metre.
Ms Follett: That is wrong.
MR HUMPHRIES: I am sure that, whatever the figure is, it is much, much higher than whatever this Assembly would be paying if it were to move into the old Parliament House. I have not received a reply from the Chief Minister to my letter, so I do not know whether the option has been explored and whether the Federal Government has been approached to ask it what the cost of hiring would be. I look forward to the Chief Minister's advice on that question if it is obtained.
The Chief Minister eventually said that the use of the old Parliament House would not be appropriate. That, I think, is not only the nub of the Government's reasons, but also the only reason that I can see for denying that suggestion. To suggest that a national monument ought not to be used to house an ACT institution I think belittles the connection between the establishment of those national buildings and the history of the Canberra community.
Canberra owes its very existence to the existence of such national institutions. To boil it down to its very simplest terms, our presence here on these Limestone Plains is indeed directly related to the creation 62 years ago, only a few kilometres from this site, of a white building on the slopes of Camp Hill. No other community in the world, Mr Speaker, so owes its existence, its very presence here, to the existence of a single building as does Canberra.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .