Page 2280 - Week 08 - Tuesday, 17 August 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
That particular site on the Acton Peninsula has been the subject of a huge number of letters, which no doubt all members have received. I would like to draw attention to one letter that I received, a copy of a letter to the Minister from Professor G. Aitchison, dated 9 June. I note that I received it a very short while later. Professor Aitchison drew attention to the building of a hospice on the Acton Peninsula and to some of the difficulties in constructing a new building at a cost of $3m. He wrote:
The erection of any new building on Acton Peninsula should not be undertaken at this stage because it would inevitably pre-empt any overall plan for the whole area.
I think that is a very important issue. He also said:
We recognise that Labor gave an election promise to establish a hospice; and this we applaud, for there is a real need for a hospice in Canberra.
I agree, Mr Deputy Speaker. I do not think there is any debate about that issue amongst members of this Assembly. In fact, I remember Mr Humphries making a similar commitment.
Mr Humphries: The first one.
MR MOORE: He interjects that he was the first one to do so - which is surprising, considering the letter that was quoted from by Mrs Carnell today about what Mr Berry had signed. Professor Aitchison's letter continued:
But we submit that that promise would be fulfilled, certainly in the spirit and we believe in the letter, by the provision of the hospice within an existing building - indeed, more so by using a satisfactory existing building than by constructing a new one on an eminently unsuitable site.
He gave the reasons why it is such an unsuitable site. He went on to conclude:
We strongly urge you to have the fence removed, abandon any thought of a new hospice building on the old car park site, and restore an existing building for a hospice. Even if this involves having to pay damages for breach of contract ...
The letter actually is jointly signed by Professor and Mrs Aitchison. I misrepresented that point. Mr Deputy Speaker, he is not the only person who has presented this point of view. As late as yesterday morning in the Canberra Times, Professor Douglas presented a similar view and a similar perspective.
I also happen to have in my possession something that was referred to, Mr Deputy Speaker, by Matthew Abraham in his program yesterday - a design study for ACT Public Works which was carried out by Munns Sly and others. It is known as Design Studies, Drawing No. 10. The brief that goes with it says:
The preferred option shown on Drawing No. 10 achieves the following important design features ...
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .