Page 1086 - Week 04 - Thursday, 29 March 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
sensitive handling, but I believe that we do need some response to the problems that I have identified. I believe that this is one matter additional to those in the recommendations that ought to come out of this report. Again, I thank members for their consideration.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Sitting suspended from 12.20 pm to 2.30 pm
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Hospital Redevelopment
MS FOLLETT: Mr Speaker, my question is to Mr Humphries, the Minister for Health, and it relates to his hospital redevelopment announcement. Does the Government intend to retain the podium and Sylvia Curley House on the Acton Peninsula?
MR HUMPHRIES: At this stage, Mr Speaker, my expectation is that yes, we would retain both of those things; although I have to say that if the process of redevelopment entails considerations which give rise to a different outcome, well, the Government will not argue with that. Of course, the imperative is not to incur significant cost, but if that can be sustained within those limits then we will certainly retain Sylvia Curley House and the Podium.
MS FOLLETT: I have a supplementary question, Mr Speaker. Mr Humphries has said that they do intend to retain the Podium and Sylvia Curley House. What is the cost of refurbishing those buildings?
MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Speaker, I think I can answer that question if I explain to Ms Follett exactly what the Government is going to do with those buildings in a general sense. Obviously, as Ms Follett is indicating or alluding to, it will cost money to refurbish those buildings; there is no doubt about that at all. But the point is that if the Government relocates on to that site activities that are conducted elsewhere in Canberra, then naturally other things come into train. In this case some of those activities will no longer be carried on on other sites and those sites might, for example, be sold to generate certain capital moneys which can then be used to refurbish alternative accommodation on those other sites.
For example, if the ACT were to relocate the Queen Elizabeth Home for mothers and babies on to that site - and I should say I do not know that it would necessarily go in either of those two buildings, but just say for argument's sake that it did - naturally, the Government could consider the option of selling the site on which the QE II home presently stands. The money generated from that sale would be used, in part or wholly, to refurbishing alternative
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .