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
Wednesday, 24 October 1973
Page: 2584

Debate resumed from 23 August (vide page 303), on motion by Mr Scholes:

(1)   That this House is of the opinion that -

(a)   the site for the New and Permanent Parliament House should be determined forthwith.

(b)   a joint meeting of the Senate and the House of Reprsentatives should be convened to determine the matter, and

(c)   planning for the new House should commence immediately.

(2)   That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting its concurrence.

And on the amendment moved thereto by Mr Uren,

That all words after 'That' (first occurring) be omitted wilh a view to inserting the following words in place thereof:

This House is of the opinion that:

(a)   action should be taken forthwith to initiate the planning and design of the new and permanent Parliament House;

(b)   the design should encompass the total building complex but should permit staged construction;

(c)   the site for the new House should be on Camp Hill, to permit the use of the first stage in association with the existing building, and

(d)   a joint meeting of the Senate and the House of Representatives should be convened to determine the matter by a majority of Senators and Members present at that meeting.

(2)   That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting its concurrence'.

Mr DALY(Grayndler- Leader of the House) - May I crave the indulgence of the House to make a brief statement in regard to the procedure in connection with this motion. This is a very important debate. It is of importance not only to the nation but also to honourable members in relation to the facilities provided for them. There will be a free vote, as all honourable members understand. We on this side of the House have no desire to interfere with that or at any stage to curtail the debate. But it was suggested at our Party meeting this morning, and I understand it is acceptable to the Liberal Party, too, that the debate should run for about 2 hours. We may be able to finish it in that time. If honourable members who desire to speak - there may be many of them - confine their remarks to about 10 minutes we think that probably everyone who desires to speak will be able to do so. I just make that brief explanation to the Parliament and appeal for the co-operation of honourable members.







Suggest corrections