Page 217 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 30 May 1989

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


preserved as a national institution; and it is too large and much too expensive a proposition for this Assembly.

I am also aware that the Minister for Administrative Services in the Federal Parliament has today made an announcement on the future of the old Parliament House. That announcement, I think, could be categorised as the good news and the bad news. On the good news side, Mr West has said that the old Parliament House will be used as a museum of political history and also that it will be used to accommodate a number of other groups, such as the Australian Heritage Commission and some public facilities.

But, on the bad news side, Mr West has said that no resources will be committed to that in this coming financial year, and indeed not until 1990-91. I think that is quite a reprehensible step by the Federal Government, given that the old Parliament House has been vacant now for some time and that its future has been under question. There is no doubt in my mind that a building of that size and style left unattended and vacant for that period will deteriorate markedly. I think, therefore, that it would be desirable perhaps for much earlier action to be taken on the old Parliament House because it is such an historic building in the ACT.

It has served the people of the ACT and Australia as the seat of Federal government for over 50 years, and it of course has enormous national historical connotation; it is also an important part of Canberra's standing as the national capital. I welcome the Minister's proposal that it will be preserved, and that it will be preserved in an appropriate way, but I believe it is reprehensible that there will be yet another year's delay in action on that.

HOSPITALS

MR MOORE: My question is directed to the Minister for Community Services and Health. On Friday, 26 May, after consultation with the Residents Rally, and I presume others, the Minister appointed two union representatives to the steering committee investigating the principal hospital concept. I congratulate Charles McDonald and Prue Power on their appointments.

Is the Minister aware that other bodies have an equivalent claim, and would he consider calling for nominations from people to represent long-term patients and the Returned Services League, which had approached Mr Holding and which was told that he would "bring the views of the Returned Services League to the attention of the incoming Government"?

MR BERRY: I would like to make it clear that I will be making a statement later in these proceedings about the steering committee. As to the member's questions, I would


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