Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 7 Hansard (28 June) . . Page.. 2171 ..
MR CORBELL
(continuing):any other city in Australia. There are many beautiful gardens in the Old Red Hill precinct. Many of those gardens are open from time to time through schemes such as the open garden scheme so that people can enjoy them.
In short, this precinct provides an aspect of our city which is not experienced in any other part of Canberra. Of course, those who live there have a privileged position. They are able to afford it and they are able to enjoy its amenity on a daily basis. But we in this place should not make decisions about heritage based solely on our perceptions of the group of people who live there.
I was thinking about this some months ago when I raised an issue about the Northbourne Flats. Perhaps Old Red Hill and Northbourne Flats are two extremes, but they are two extremes of the same issue. The Northbourne Flats, designed by Sydney Archer, a leading Australian neo-modernist architect of the 1960s, and the Old Red Hill precinct are both areas of heritage significance in our city.
Regardless of whether it is people from a higher income group or people from a lower income group who live in these heritage areas, the response from this government is the same: "We can change it." In relation to Old Red Hill, it is: "Oh, well, we can change it to provide for dual occupancy development. We should allow development there." But when it is public housing which is unique in its neo-modernist design, yet very badly run down, and occupied by public housing tenants, the response is: "We should get rid of it."
It is an interesting commentary on heritage debate in the city that, regardless of whether it is people from a high-income group or people from a low-income group who inhabit an area of heritage significance, the response from this government is the same: "We can change it." I think that is a sad commentary.
We in this place should make decisions about heritage areas based solely on their heritage significance-not on who lives there and not on how our city has changed but on what the place represents and how it is significant for the history, both cultural and planning, of our city. That is why I have moved this motion today. I thank members for their support.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Debate resumed.
MR BERRY
: I seek leave to speak again.Leave granted.
MR BERRY
: This matter was deferred earlier because I suggested that I was going to prepare another amendment, but in the scheme of things, and after gazing around the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .