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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 2 Hansard (27 February) . . Page.. 603 ..

MR WHITECROSS (continuing):

a very worrying suggestion by this Government here. But, Mr Speaker, it is exactly this concern which motivates members on this side of the house to say that we should not commit money to the demolition of buildings on Acton Peninsula without knowing that the Federal Government has made a commitment, on its part, to build the museum.

Mr Speaker, clearly, the Federal Government has not made that commitment yet. Clearly, they are waiting until the 1997-98 budget context to determine whether they are going to make that commitment. Mr Speaker, until they make that commitment, I do not think it is appropriate for us to spend $8m of ACT taxpayers' money to demolish the buildings on Acton. Mr Humphries suggested that it would not be wasted, because, even if we spent the $8m and the site lay vacant for 20 years, we would still have something to show for it; namely, the Kingston foreshore.

Leaving aside the question of exactly what the benefit of the Kingston foreshore is, because that is a debate for a different occasion, Mr Speaker, the fact still remains that we would have flushed $8m down the toilet for a vacant lot. If it is going to take 20 years for the Federal Government to get around to doing something with Acton, I would rather have the $8m for 20 years and do something else useful with it. Then, in 20 years' time, when the Federal Government finally gets around to doing something about it, we could spend the $8m. That would be soon enough for me, Mr Speaker. Why spend $8m on clearing a site for the Federal Government to do nothing with? The Government has made it clear, Mr Speaker, that it does not trust the Federal Government. Neither do we. For that reason, we are very concerned about committing ACT money to that site until the site has been committed to the museum being built.

Mr Speaker, another furphy which has been thrown around is that we will lose the Kingston site. But, of course, we will not lose the Kingston site, because the land swap has already gone ahead. The Federal Government, if it is not building anything on the site, can hardly complain that the site is not yet cleared.

Mr Speaker, it seems to me that all the arguments of the Government add up to a cast-iron reason for supporting the motion, because they all add up to the same thing: We cannot trust the Federal Government. We want to see the colour of their money before we spend $8m on clearing this site. But, Mr Speaker, there is another - - -

Mr Humphries: You guys over there are taking a hell of a risk.

MR WHITECROSS: I am coming to that, Mr Humphries. Mr Speaker, there is another very sinister undercurrent in what Mr Humphries has been saying, and I think it is one that should be of the gravest concern to people in this place. Mr Humphries seems to be bordering on confident that the Federal Government is not going to come up with the funds. He wants, by the device of the argument that he has advanced today, to set the groundwork for blaming members in this place for the failure of his Federal colleagues to live up to the commitments that they made in the past.

Mr Speaker, there is absolutely no excuse contained in the actions suggested in this motion for the Federal Government to renege on its half of the bargain. Mr Speaker, if Mr Humphries has information to suggest that the Federal Government is planning to renege on its half of the bargain, then he cannot blame us. The blame will lie with

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