Page 2160 - Week 08 - Thursday, 10 September 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Assembly to express their views. It was one of the points that I made from the outset. Just as I was quoted in terms of the three preconditions, I also did say that there ought to be some sort of a committee to represent the interests of the members in putting this building together. The members seem to have been excluded in some fashion, or perhaps they are some of the "others", and I think that needs to be examined a bit further.
Madam Speaker, there are many recommendations, some of which vary the Government's proposal, and I do not know the net effect of that in terms of cost. The Government's original proposal was costed at some $12m. The changes that have been proposed have not been costed. Although we have a fairly comprehensive report, we do not now know what the ultimate cost of this proposal is going to be. It is an unknown factor. That is a matter that needs to be pursued in some detail too. On balance, Madam Speaker, it is a reasonable report. It seems to take into account the important factors and, by and large, I find the recommendations to be quite acceptable.
MS SZUTY (10.50): Madam Speaker, I would like to thank members of the committee who have referred in complimentary terms to the work done by me and my private secretary, Ms Karen Nicholson, in preparing submissions for the consideration of committee members.
I am pleased to endorse the committee's report, with one reservation. It does concern me that the committee, while not accepting that the Assembly will be housed in the South Building for only 15 to 20 years, only commits the Assembly to occupying the refurbished building for the longer term. Within the report this seems to imply around 50 years, but I feel that we need to approach this important task with the view that there will not be another move in the future. I feel that if we are to give the people of Canberra a symbolic Assembly, to reflect the true status of the Assembly as the Territory's legislature - quoting from Mr Trevor Kaine's submission - we must approach this task from the point of view of the move being permanent. This is not to say that we should not take into account the need for refurbishment at various times in the future, but we should not see this task as being only a stage in the longer process. I agree with the Public Sector Union's submission that drew on the example of another well-known temporary parliament which outlived its capacity by several decades. Our approach should be that this is the ACT Legislative Assembly's permanent home.
With regard to the report overall, I feel that it is a balanced document which touches on the major needs of an Assembly and quite rightly draws the parameters for refurbishment. Once the steering committee has been formed its task will be a large one, obtaining and reviewing more detailed proposals as to how to bring about the change in the South Building from its present unworkable status to a functional, efficient building which Canberrans can identify as their seat of government. Many comments from my submission about the importance of public facilities for aged people and people with disabilities and children, I hope, will be taken on board by the steering committee when they examine the detail stage of the move. I am also pleased that the need for major broadcasting infrastructure will be taken up in the proposal and, again, I would hope that the detailed technical work as proposed by Ms Karen Nicholson also will be closely examined by the steering committee at the detail stage.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .