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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 2 Hansard (27 February) . . Page.. 608 ..

MS HORODNY (continuing):

I had hoped that members in this Assembly would support our motion. I think it is very sensible, given that successive Federal governments have not kept to a promise to build a National Museum, that we wait until we see the whites of their eyes before we commit to demolishing buildings on Acton Peninsula.

By the way, just quickly to finish, Mrs Carnell today tabled the asset management strategy document. It is very interesting. I was having a look through it. Mrs Carnell scoffed when Ms Tucker very sensibly addressed the issue of reusing those buildings. It happens all over the world, Mrs Carnell, where old buildings - - -

Mrs Carnell: It is too late. They have been gutted.

MS HORODNY: Why were they gutted? What assessment was done to determine that the needs of the National Museum, or at least some of those needs, may not be met by the existing buildings? We do not know that, because you never bothered to do that work. In the asset management strategy that you tabled today, Mrs Carnell, you talk about reuse and disposal of assets. In fact, you talk about assets being reused and you say that reuse planning should be "a routine aspect of asset management and the Government as owner should be advised of the quantum and timing involved and practices adopted". So, it seems that, in one of your own documents here, you advocate that buildings be looked at for reuse, yet you scoff at a very sensible suggestion that we at least look at that possibility. No-one is saying that every single building on Acton could be refurbished for reuse; but surely some of the buildings could be, and you have not addressed that issue.

MRS CARNELL (Chief Minister): I would like to make a statement under standing order 47.

MR SPEAKER: Proceed.

MRS CARNELL: Mr Speaker, I want to explain some words that I used before. Ms Horodny commented that I had said somehow that the Prime Minister had, shall we say, promised Yarramundi in the election campaign, or she indicated that that was the case. The reality is that he did not. The Prime Minister indicated that his preferred site was Yarramundi and that he was going to spend $1.5m deciding which was the most appropriate site. The fact is that the $1.5m came out with Acton as the most preferred site. To suggest for a moment that the Prime Minister had somehow committed to Yarramundi is simply incorrect.

Amendment agreed to.

MS TUCKER (5.49), in reply: Mr Speaker, in closing the debate, I would like to make a couple of comments. First of all, the agreement that was tabled yesterday states quite clearly that demolition is to be completed by 31 December 1997. So, I cannot see why the Federal Government is going to be so upset if we, because of our own internal processes in this Assembly, which I would have thought they would respect, decide to delay that demolition for two months. It is not going to affect this agreement. There is no reason for it to affect the agreement. What is the problem with that? This is apparently what the agreement is.

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