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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 10 Hansard (Thursday, 26 August 2004) . . Page.. 4322 ..

the development, lodge a development application, but they have chosen not to at this stage. We know they will.

We cannot drive their timelines; it is in their hands. They’re dealing with probably—I would expect—a range of financial issues in relation to the decision to go ahead with the construction and lodge the development application. It has got nothing to do with us. We are waiting and working with Calvary in relation to the delivery of the aged care facility at Bruce. Of course, it will be delivered. It will be delivered by the Little Company of Mary. The land has been provided; the land has been approved for direct grant. Calvary have now accepted that particular offer. The matter is wholly and solely within their hands.

We have made a very significant contribution to the Bruce development. I do not know the real dollar worth of that, but—

Mr Corbell: It’s over $1 million.

MR STANHOPE: It is well in excess of $1 million of direct assistance by this government to Calvary in relation to the Bruce site. We are waiting now for Calvary to arrange its affairs and get on with the delivery of those beds.

Canberra—governance

MR HARGREAVES: My question is directed to the retiring minister for lots and lots of things in his capacity as Minister for Urban Services, Minister for Arts and Heritage, Minister for Police and Emergency Services, and Minister for Disability, Housing and Community Services.

MR SPEAKER: You mean Mr Wood!

MR HARGREAVES: Indeed I do. Will the venerable member please inform the Assembly of the progress of governance in his portfolios over the last 15 years.

MR WOOD: I certainly can. It will be brief. The last sitting day of this Assembly is beginning to sound like the last day of school. Mr Speaker, you, among others, would remember that, in large measure, we were not wanted for some good reasons. Over a period of 70 years Canberra had grown from wide open sheep runs to scattered dusty suburbs and then, by 1989, to a city of some 280,000 people with generously provided facilities and with a low cost of living compared to the states.

That is the background. That was necessarily so. The Commonwealth had to provide the resources and the facilities to attract all those public servants to this place from comfortable Sydney and Melbourne. Those officers were then keen to look after the city they lived in. Canberra had it very good. Canberrans knew that. So they said, “Why change it?” “But,” said the Commonwealth, “you’ve grown up. You’ll now pay your way. You’re on your own.”

Most of the members here would remember all that. We got self-government so that we Canberrans would make those hard decisions about containing expenditure and increasing revenue. That sounds like Ted Quinlan. Not surprisingly, many ACT voters

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