Page 2281 - Week 08 - Tuesday, 17 August 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
So drawing No. 10 is the preferred option. It shows, Mr Deputy Speaker, H block or the isolation ward of the old Canberra Hospital. Remember that this had been refurbished one year prior to its being closed down; so it is in really good nick, unlike some other parts of the Canberra Hospital. It is an eminently suitable site. Why did they see it as the preferred option? A series of reasons is given. There are six or seven dot points there: There is a centrally placed nursing station to supervise all rooms; all rooms have aspect and views either towards the lake or northwards into the tranquil garden, a remnant of the existing premises; there is separate discreet circulation for removal of bodies from rooms to the service area without going past the front entrance. A series of quite logical reasons is given as to why that would be the preferred option before we even look at costs, Mr Deputy Speaker.
One thing not mentioned in here but which I think is apparent is another advantage in terms of a hospice. Many people who go to a hospice over the next few years will probably not have members of their family in Canberra. The Acton Peninsula site allows for support accommodation. That could be provided on the Acton Peninsula. There are many parts of the existing hospital which would allow that sort of accommodation. So there is an advantage there as well.
Mr Humphries: There is a 200-bed hostel at Calvary, unused.
MR MOORE: Mr Humphries interjects with a comment about a 200-bed hostel unused at Calvary Hospital. He will have the opportunity to present his view on this issue. I would like to emphasise the political parameters. The majority of people who are in the Assembly are committed to a hospice on the Acton Peninsula. Having set that parameter, it is appropriate for us to determine what is the best way to put a hospice there. Mr Berry has gone down the course of suggesting a new $3m hospice to be built there. What I am arguing this afternoon, Mr Deputy Speaker, is that this is a project that ought now be reconsidered and that we ought look very carefully at the refurbished isolation ward as a much better way to spend our very tight money.
One issue that has rarely gone to the public domain, I think, is the environmental advantages of doing that, Mr Deputy Speaker. We often talk about the three Rs. We talk about reusing something before we recycle it. I think reusing is the important factor here. The isolation ward is ripe for reuse as a hospice and that would be a major advantage to the environment rather than a major cost to the environment. Think what it costs the environment to produce the heat to provide enough bricks to build a building such as the one we are talking about. That is just one small element of the importance of reusing, even before we start on a process of recycling.
That issue arises even before we look at the public consultation process. On a number of occasions I have heard Mr Berry say, "Look, we went to an election and we were voted in, clearly, on providing a hospice on the Acton Peninsula". I do not debate that because that is correct. Therefore public consultation should work within those parameters. I accept that as a background to what is being done here. Having made a commitment, and on this occasion keeping that commitment, is a very positive thing, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .