Page 119 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 24 May 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
HERITAGE ASSETS - PROTECTION
MR HUMPHRIES, by leave: I move:
That the Assembly takes early action to provide adequate protection of heritage assets in the Australian Capital Territory.
I think it is appropriate, Mr Speaker, that this matter of public importance can come up today and be dealt with relatively soon after a fairly important decision was taken last week concerning the demolition of a house in Barton which, according to some people, was an item which ought to have been preserved as a heritage asset for the Territory.
I think it is appropriate that this matter comes up at all because problems in this area are, in my view, an excellent example of the reason that the ACT was granted self-government in the first place. Heritage legislation - or rather a lack of it - is a classic case of Federal Government neglect in the Territory. This is a case where the benevolent dictatorship, which has so long run the Territory in the form of various and successive Federal Ministers, has failed either through a lack of interest or resources or concern, or perhaps all three, to provide adequate protection of assets, whether they are man-made or natural, which are significant to this Territory and which ought to be preserved for posterity.
Those who would argue that Federal administration was always good enough for Canberra need look no further than this area and this debate to see how fallacious that argument is. There are many areas, Mr Speaker, where legislative review is needed, and those issues face this Assembly at the moment. Mental health legislation and occupational health and safety are just two such areas. Any list one would care to draw up indicating the priority, or what should be the priority, of this Assembly would have to put heritage very near the top.
The Opposition is concerned that today there is in the ACT no comprehensive, clear, balanced and enforceable law to protect assets of architectural, historical, aesthetic or cultural significance to this community. The reason the Opposition is concerned, and the reason, as I have said, such legislation ought to take a very high priority on the scale of matters is that such assets are, at the present time, under serious threat.
Last week, Mr Speaker, a demolition permit was granted in respect of a house abutting Telopea Park. That house was in the so-called early federal capital style and was about 50 years old. Soon after the permit was granted, the house was demolished - very soon, in fact. I understand four aged persons' units are to be built on the site. Blocks in the Barton-Kingston-Reid area are particularly susceptible to this kind of redevelopment because they are large blocks
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .