Page 2908 - Week 10 - Thursday, 15 August 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Speaker, I claim that this is a good deal for the diggers but I do not argue about that. The diggers deserve it. Let that be quite clear; what I am doing here is putting this in context. Let me tell you how a different group in the ACT went about their arrangements. At the same time as we rejected these proposals, this variation for the RSL, we accepted a variation on behalf of a church at Hughes. They are going through much the same process. But they did indicate to the planning and leasehold people how they proposed to do it. I know that Mr Collaery would be quite interested in these sorts of proposals.
They assessed that the extra value of the land because of the variation was $700,000. They did not put that $700,000 into additional amenities or something else; they decided to construct an aged persons hostel with that money. I think that is an excellent way to go because hostel accommodation for aged persons is what is probably most needed and least available. That is an excellent proposal and it is one I am going to be recommending to the RSL as we continue our discussions on this. Let me emphasise again for Mr Humphries that we agreed with the tabling of that variation - signatured by other people - about Hughes. Do not let him say that we do not care about the ageing in this respect, because we approved that.
Mr Speaker, we will assist the RSL to proceed. We want them to provide services for their aged diggers. We have no question about that. But they have been so dogmatic about the site. They have had one site in mind and they do not want any other site. I believe that we can finally come to agreement with them on a preferred site. This goes back quite a deal of time. I understand that it was the Commonwealth Government, first of all, that said, "No, you cannot have that site". Then it was the Follett Government who said, "No, you cannot have it. I have here a letter quite clearly detailing the process - a letter from Rosemary Follett on 22 November 1989 to the National Secretary of the RSL, saying, "That site is not available; let us talk about other ones", even though, of course, by that time it was known that they did not want any other site.
They could have had this place up and running long ago if they had accepted that this Government, the former Government and the Federal Government not only have a concern and care for the diggers, but also have the responsibility to take note of the needs of the people of Canberra as a whole. That is why we and most other people have rejected this variation - because this is a prime piece of land that ought to remain within the province of the people of Canberra altogether. That is what is going to happen; it is going to stay for Canberra. That is why we rejected it - not because we do not want diggers to get housing. That is simply not the case. I predict that in a short time after meetings that I have arranged with the RSL are concluded we will be able to proceed down a path where they will be able to develop this much needed housing.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .