Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 1 Hansard (22 February) . . Page.. 170 ..

MR WOOD (continuing):

I claim, as I always have, that the only place for that Cultural Centre is the North Building across the square. I did not commission a report about the cost of establishing the centre there. There was a report, no doubt. I believe that it was ordered by the ACT Treasury or bureaucrats. They may have had some concerns, but I did not commission that report. To the best of my knowledge, it was not a government report. Mr Humphries was kind enough to send a copy to me so that I could be better informed. I have to say that I sent it back to him with thanks and unread, because I did not place any credence in that report in the sense that it should have disqualified the North Building from consideration. Apparently - and I say "apparently" because I did not read that report - it talks about long-term costing of relocating public servants and the like, which may be some form of accounting; but it is in no way, I believe, appropriate to use that to prevent the proper use of the North Building.

In recent times, Mr Humphries has been continuing the thrust that I had to revitalise Civic Centre and make it some better form of a cultural heart for Canberra. I applaud that; please continue with that work. But you cannot continue seriously with that if you are not going to put the Cultural Centre in the North Building. If you want to dispatch that to a forlorn foreshore at Kingston, as it will be for many years, you are running against the policy that you espouse about a brighter heart for Civic. There is only one place for it, and that is the North Building. Public servants will need to be relocated, and you will need to find the place for them. So be it; but do not use that as an excuse to shift the Cultural Centre to where it should not be. I think all you need to do is confirm the decision that was already made that it was going in the North Building and get on and do it.

MS HORODNY (11.37): I seek leave to speak again on this subject.

Leave granted.

MS HORODNY: I would like to say that I am disappointed in the Government's response to this committee's report on the draft capital works program. My particular disappointment covers many issues, particularly the issue of the infrastructure in our natural areas - in our nature reserves. It seems that the Government does not have a commitment at this stage or at any time, I understand, to a management plan for Namadgi that is up to date. The management plan that we have at the moment is eight years old, and it is completely inappropriate as a basis for the sort of infrastructure that is planned in this draft capital works program for an area that does not have an up-to-date management plan. That is a real issue, and this Government has to address that very soon. It is very disappointing to see a real go ahead attitude with all sorts of infrastructure and tourist development in areas that have not been assessed for the appropriate level of impact. It seems to me that that amounts to a misuse of public funds and an abuse of the community's trust in this Government to do the right thing by those areas. I will speak more about that at another time.

The other recommendation that also was ignored was the issue of the eco-office. I believe that the eco-office is not really funded at all; it is quite a joke to - - -

Mr Humphries: Which office?

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .