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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 6 Hansard (23 May) . . Page.. 1651 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

proposals like the Acton-Kingston land swap because it has that potential. That potential does not exist if we retain effective control and possession of Acton Peninsula. We know that we will not, because there was never any possibility, from this time onwards, that that land would be used for other than major national purposes. That is the great flaw in the throwaway line that Mr Berry and Mr Wood are peddling out in the community: "We are swapping a magnificent site for a dump". I agree that Acton is magnificent, and I agree that there are contamination issues at Kingston. But the point is that Acton has no potential for ACT development of a kind that Kingston has. That is the difference. We simply cannot put our wonderful ACT project on Acton Peninsula. The Commonwealth wants it. The Commonwealth will have it.

Even those opposite were prepared to accept the Commonwealth taking control of Acton Peninsula and doing as it wished with it, sight unseen, when the project was a Gallery of Aboriginal Australia. There were no plans on the table then for the Gallery of Aboriginal Australia. We did not know how big it was going to be; we did not know whether it was going to include the other two components of the National Museum of Australia; we did not know when it was going to start. It has been promised for four years and has not been delivered. We had all those promises on the table, with nothing specific, and those opposite were prepared to say, "Yes, sure; you want it for that purpose; it is yours; take it; we do not mind". But when it comes down to this Government actually accepting the consequence of that, which is that ACT control of those buildings is of no value to the Territory, and, instead, trying to arrange a swap to get buildings and land which are of value to the Territory, we find them bleating, "No, you cannot do it".

I hope that most citizens of the Territory realise what a shallow and self-serving argument it is that those opposite have pursued in this matter, because there is simply no comparison between Kingston and any other site in the Territory. Ms McRae compared the Kingston foreshore with North Watson. Dear, oh dear! North Watson! She compared the Kingston foreshore with the Griffin Centre. The angels of logic certainly flew out of this building when that comparison was made. Honestly, does she really believe that there is any comparison between the Griffin Centre and the Kingston foreshore? Dear, oh dear! The Yarralumla Brickworks certainly is a proposal with some potential, but that is not a proposal which depends on any deal with the Commonwealth. That has the go-ahead, more or less, straightaway. In fact, the Government, I can tell you, is looking at that proposal at this very minute. We want to get moving a proposal which stalled under the previous Government. As I said, we are about getting things happening; generating the opportunities; generating the investment; and generating the jobs. Those people opposite do not realise how important those things are. That is why they presided over the highest rate of youth unemployment in this country.

I make no secret of the fact that we want to pursue this option. We are prepared to let the Commonwealth take over Acton Peninsula because we know that it is the rightful administering authority for that peninsula. I have to say, on a personal level, that I think it would be a planning tragedy of unparalleled proportions if somehow the result of this debate, or other debates flowing from this, was that Acton Peninsula remained as it was,

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