Page 149 - Week 01 - Thursday, 9 April 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR MOORE: I hate to tell you this, Greg; but we are going to be around for a long time as a thorn in the side. It is a bit of a problem. It may not be us personally, but there will be enough of us around. The point is that I am delighted to take into account any other issues that somebody may wish to raise. I think that is the nature of such committees and I look forward to weighing up the issues.
I am not totally convinced that the South Building is the most appropriate building at this stage. That is one of the reasons why it is appropriate that this go to a committee to determine whether or not that is the appropriate building. There are other buildings in the ACT already that I think we should at least weigh up. It may well be that other buildings that we weigh up are eliminated very rapidly. Nevertheless, I think it appropriate that we should consider them. I would be delighted should anybody like to suggest a building such as the Curtin school or something along those lines that has been closed. That might be more appropriate and I would be delighted to consider using those areas.
Mr De Domenico: The Reid Pre-School?
MR MOORE: I hear an interjection from Mr De Domenico that the Reid Pre-School would be an appropriate site. It is in an absolutely delightful spot; there is no question about that. It would be a beautiful location for a parliament. The building itself has some heritage value and would not really be appropriate for modification to Assembly size, although, with its two rooms and toilets, the size of it would suit Mr De Domenico, and it may well suit some other members. However, I think it is important for us to take this matter reasonably seriously. With those few words, Madam Speaker, I indicate that I support the motion.
MR HUMPHRIES (11.36): I am also happy to support the motion. As one of those who have laboured in this building - I use the word advisedly - there is great relief at the prospect of our being able to move to accommodation which is more suitable. Someone pointed out that this is a very salubrious address - No. 1 Constitution Avenue - but that is the only thing about it that is salubrious. I understand that this chamber used to be a shopfront for some government agency.
Mr Kaine: It still is.
MR HUMPHRIES: Perhaps it is. The rest of the building is basically office accommodation which is substantially but not wholly appropriate to the functioning of a working legislature, and in my view it is extremely appropriate that we consider alternative accommodation. Mr Moore has raised the prospect of moving somewhere other than the South Building. I am not sure that the motion Ms Follett has brought forward accommodates that.
Mr Kaine: What about Ian Potter House? That would be fantastic.
MR HUMPHRIES: Yes, Ian Potter House, or Beauchamp House as it used to be known. That would be a very appropriate - - -
Mr Lamont: You cannot move to Beauchamp House. Your mate Michael Hodgman gave it away.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .