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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 9 Hansard (31 August) . . Page.. 2603 ..

MR MOORE: For facilities associated with that sporting area. That is why the recreation area has been set aside. I am saying that there would be good arguments to put for a variation to the Territory Plan. There being good arguments that could be sustained, it would mean that the outcome of seeking a variation to the Territory Plan would be uncertain and there certainly would be a long delay involved in that, and that would be before we looked at the National Capital Plan and the overlay there. That is why it is that the Hospice and Palliative Care Society, recognising those issues and the uncertain outcome, was prepared, as I understand it, to say that the Griffith site was a reasonable compromise. It will be interesting to hear what people have to say at the consultative meeting this evening which is part of the whole process that I have been going through.

There is some suggestion, Mr Speaker and members, that there has been a lack of consultation on the part of the Government; on the contrary. I said that I would keep an open mind, but my preferred position, as I made very clear quite some time ago, was a site overlooking water in a broad acreage on Lake Ginninderra. That was my personal preference and I did not make any secret of it. By the way, it was a change from my very first personal preference, which was a site behind Calvary in the bushland. I said to a number of members that that was my first personal preference, but it had been eliminated on the ground that it required a change to the Territory Plan because it was in a hills and buffer zone and there were good arguments as to why it should remain a hills and buffer zone - exactly the same sort of argument as to why the Hospice and Palliative Care Society have changed their view on Yarralumla - not that I do not still think that out behind Calvary would be the best site if we could have it, but it is too difficult.

I am demonstrating that I have been prepared to listen, prepared to change and prepared to vary my view, and I still am, as part of the consultation process. I have met with the Hospice and Palliative Care Society a number of times, I have met with the Hospice and Palliative Care Partnership Team, I have met with Sister Berenice and spoken to her on the phone as well and I have met with Calvary Hospital on a number of occasions. I had a very brief discussion on this issue at a social occasion with the head of the NCA. I have taken quite seriously the motion of the Assembly. I am quite comfortable with accepting it. We supported the motion of the Assembly as I was doing all these things anyway.

MR SPEAKER: Do you have a supplementary question, Mr Stanhope?

MR STANHOPE: Yes, Mr Speaker. I am almost intimidated out of asking it. Can the Minister explain how the site at Griffith was chosen? Was it discovered in the same way as the Hospice and Palliative Care Society discovered the Yarralumla Bay site, that is, on a Sunday afternoon drive? Was the Minister driven by the same sense of desperation that he was losing control of the situation as the society felt when it was ignored in consultations over the new site for the hospice?

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