Page 3384 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 14 November 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
things in the territory, and I am anxious to see that we preserve what we do have to the maximum extent possible. It is possible for this to be achieved in conjunction with the development and growth of the city.
The society does hold concerns about whether there is a suitable alternative site if it is forced to move by the government. I agree with the sentiment contained in Mr Gentleman’s motion that the Australian Railway Historical Society needs to be protected. It does vital work and has probably not received the recognition that it deserves. Its work should not be sacrificed because of a folly of government.
It is difficult to comment very specifically on any possible relocation of the society because more detail is needed. I am sure the society would like to know a little more about what is intended. Suffice to say that I will be monitoring the situation closely. I urge the government not to act rashly and to consult widely before acting on this matter. The threat to the continuation of the vital work of the society is too great. As the Hon Tim Fischer pointed out to me, Australia has only 12 rail heritage units and we cannot afford to sabotage one of these, especially when it is based in the national capital.
If relocation is unavoidable—and I would need to see convincing evidence that this is the case—financial assistance might be appropriate. The society would need help to ensure that their work continues. As I have indicated, there are many opportunities to cite overseas experience. One such site is Didcot—the end point of a train that travelled from London and through Bristol and was completed in 1841. Its preservation of old locomotives began in the sixties and, since moving into an abandoned engine shed, the centre has grown and has expanded significantly into what is a 23-hectare site. Mr Fischer pointed this out to me and gave it as a very good example. We have looked at the website for this centre, and it shows that this is not just something for those who have a nostalgic link with the past; there are opportunities to develop such arrangements to the point where they can become a significant tourist attraction.
The opposition concurs with the Chief Minister in relation to Dr Foskey’s amendment. Whilst I am hesitant to see any arrangement that would move the society from where it is presently located, I also think that one has to maintain an open mind. The paramount consideration is to ensure it is fully consulted on any requirement to move and that the facilities and space made available are adequate for its future needs.
It may well be necessary for additional funds to be made available. Given that this government is of a mind to spend on all manner of things at the moment, if there is a passion to support the society then maybe it can find something in the budget allocations. I can imagine it would be a very substantial undertaking to move this facility, and it should not be done lightly. But I also understand that there is a process of consultation and planning in that area which may necessitate moving the rail facilities from Kingston or shortening the track in that area. I do not think we can rule that out as a possibility and an option by embracing Dr Foskey’s amendment.
Dr Foskey somewhat contradicted herself. She moved the amendment and then proceeded to talk about other scenarios whereby they could move. Let us monitor this
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .