Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
 Download Full Day's HansardDownload Full Day's Hansard    View Or Save XMLView/Save XML

Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Thursday, 22 November 1973
Page: 2084


Senator WRIGHT (Tasmania) -I shall deal firstly with Senator Greenwood's point. To traverse this point would require, I would think, an argument for perhaps 3 days before the High

Court, I think the honourable senator would agree. The Bill was not drafted by myself alone. I had professional assistance. I am content to have it passed and to take the responsibility for it, knowing that it will immediately go before the Government and the best of its advisers. If they differ with it and offer amendments in the light of their advice, we will be able to discuss these questions. I was conscious that a joint control could produce a deadlock, but it is a sad reflection on the outlook of purpose and intellect of the 2 Presiding Officers and the 2 Houses of Parliament as to the administration of parliamentary grounds if, in cases which really require decision, decision is not possible. That clause was also inserted, knowing that King's Hall has been regarded by some- whether individual opinions or authentic opinions, I know not- as no man's land. Yet I sought a parliamentary expression that one Presiding Officer as representing the Parliament or both, if they can agree, should be the custodian of the care and responsibility of the parliamentary grounds.

I address myself now to Senator Milliner's point. Some people would have liked a much smaller area of Capital Hill built upon. In my second reading speech I said that I took advantage of the advice which the Chairman of the National Capital Development Commission offered with great courtesy in regard to the Bill. He told me that any designer would certainly need to have available to him the whole of the area within the red lines on the map in the Schedule attached to the Bill as proposed to be amended. I suggest that the Committee, with some eye to advocacy and having a purposeful view, should not try to take too much ground if we wish to attract agreement from another place. At a later stage the Schedule can always be amended to include an extension, if necessary. I turn now to what my colleague Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson said. If I understood him fully, I think that the problem which he mentioned arises out of the possibility that we will not get a resolution of both Houses of Parliament.


Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson - Not necessarily.


Senator WRIGHT -No. The point is that unless we get a resolution of both Houses no building shall be built. That preserves the position which, I think, all the Parliament would want. We want a say about any building which is proposed to be built in the parliamentary grounds or about any additional building.


Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson - Why does parliamentary' come into it?


Senator WRIGHT - Parliamentary buildings, of course, are a very special interest of ours. Above everything else, they would be subject to the embargo on building unless both Houses agreed. There might be objection to the clause elsewhere, as a money House, but we will deal with that if it is put up. Surely the Senate requires to be consulted about any building in the parliamentary grounds or about any additional building which will clutter up the parliamentary zone. I submit that those matters enable us to return to the amendment to clause 8 which seeks to insert the words 'Capital Hill ' after the word 'site '.

Amendment agreed to.


The CHAIRMAN (Senator Prowse -The question now is:

That the Bill as amended, with the exception of clauses S and 6, be agreed to.







Suggest corrections