Page 1927 - Week 07 - Thursday, 20 August 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Liberal Party on this issue. It seems that the future of Acton Peninsula has been in doubt for some time, and now, according to the NCPA report that I have referred to, it will remain undecided for some time to come, at least until June 1993 when the results of the design competition have been finalised.
We are also told in the NCPA document that "sentimental attitudes towards the hospital were not high on the NCPA list of priorities". Madam Speaker, I do not see the arguments for retaining health care services on Acton Peninsula as sentimental. They are based on the feeling in the community that Acton Peninsula is a good environment for health facilities, that the aspect itself has some curative and calming effect, and that benefits will accrue to the community if such uses are retained on the site. The fact that the debate is being subtly turned around by discussion of high maintenance costs and the future potential for residential and commercial development is disempowering the ACT community. The aforementioned Canberra Times article states, as part of an interview with Malcolm Smith of the NCPA:
... there was a high cost involved in maintaining all the buildings.
But why is this of concern to the NCPA? Should this not be a concern for the ACT Legislative Assembly and the Territory Planning Authority, and, most importantly, the people of Canberra, as it will continue to be Canberra residents who pay taxes to support the future uses of existing facilities?
I have also heard of a possible exchange of land being discussed, where the governments, both ACT and Federal, would exchange land in Kingston for the Acton Peninsula site. Madam Speaker, I am sure that the people of Canberra would see that as a sell-out and a betrayal of their faith. The population have lost what many considered to be Canberra's principal hospital, and now may lose any say in what happens to the future of the site. The argument that the NCPA is only expressing an opinion and that the competition is only a way of generating debate denies the strong opinions that have been expressed by the community that lives here.
I hope that this Government will take every step possible to protect Canberra's interest in this site and I suggest, Madam Speaker, that the time to do so is now. The NCPA and TPA joint discussion paper, promised for the beginning of December last year, then August, and now mid-September, may give us formal proposals to address. However, I do not agree with a wait and see stance. There needs to be an unequivocal statement on behalf of the ACT community that our needs will be paramount in deciding on the future use of Acton Peninsula.
MR WOOD (Minister for Education and Training, Minister for the Arts and Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning) (3.45): The debate has not gone the way that the MPI indicated and I want to clear this up first. Mr Moore said that we had to debate the conflicting development proposals for the Acton Peninsula. I thought that we were getting a debate about proposals that might be coming through concerning development - that is, construction and enterprises - but in fact the debate has gone a better way, the logical way, towards the planning proposals that are being mooted. Let me make that clear.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .