Page 3379 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 14 November 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The ACT government has not yet come up with any proposals to give the society any sense of security. That is why I propose to move an amendment to the motion. I am sure it would be acceptable to the society to be moved to another location, but there are issues about the size of that location. It does need to be as big as their current location—that is, at least 4½ acres, because one train is 400 metres long. They also need a huge shed. It should be remembered that the shed and the other assets on that site have been built using the voluntary labour of members of the society. It does not seem to be very practical or efficient to pull those down, move them all and re-erect them when they already exist. Certainly, it would not be sensible to replace them.
However, with respect to the East Lake development—which has been on the cards for some years, and is the main reason why the society has felt insecure—the site is right in the middle of it. We are being told that the community and heritage significance of the society and its site will be considered as part of the railway master plan. However, we do not know what that is going to look like. It is incomplete, and we do not know what to expect in the future. Twenty-six years on a site, developing and working on it, represents a huge cost when it comes to relocation.
As I said, the society is not opposed to moving but it really wonders how it is going to find $40 million to do that. And $40 million is a very large amount for this government to put forward. I would like the government to consider the cost effectiveness of leaving the museum, as it has become—it is a working museum—where it is and to consider making it a feature of East Lake, which is meant to be state of the art when it comes to sustainability. How unsustainable would it be to have a railway there? The government should look at ways in which it can add value to East Lake. It may not turn out to be the right solution, but I would like to know that it has been seriously considered. You have only to go to the museum to get an understanding of the magnitude of the task involved in moving everything.
Along with needing to be on the defined interstate rail network, the site needs to be large enough to accommodate the society’s needs. The site at Newcastle Street that has been proposed is only half the size needed and the slope is significant. It would need to be flattened, which is another cost. It is not suitable for a railway. The exhibitions are active. To retain and expand the services that the society provide, they need access to tracks and room to move.
While I support the intent of the motion and pretty much everything in Mr Gentleman’s speech, I do feel he fell short of what is really the logical conclusion to the concerns he raised. That is why I move the following amendment to Mr Gentleman’s motion:
Omit paragraphs 3 (a) and 3 (b), substitute: “ensure that the Australian Railway Historical Society remains at its current site.”.
I commend my amendment to the Assembly.
MR STANHOPE (Ginninderra—Chief Minister, Treasurer, Minister for Business and Economic Development, Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Minister for the Arts) (4.08): I thank Mr Gentleman for moving the motion today. It provides us with
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .