Page 122 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 24 May 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
such cases. What will the Government do when a person has complied with all the regulations concerning development of a site but when the Heritage Committee says that this particular asset should be preserved? What will happen then? If demolition is refused, the Government will be treating landowners quite differently from the owners of 37 Telopea Park West.
If it allows demolition to occur, for the sake of consistency, what becomes of our heritage? This is not an academic problem, Mr Speaker. Such cases will arise, especially when it becomes clear to people that heritage legislation is imminent. Some fears will be raised in people's minds that in some way the legislation will result in a diminution of the value of their land and that they might inherit liabilities, rather than valuable assets.
I hasten to say that I hope that would not be the product of any heritage legislation. I hope it would guard against that possibility; nonetheless, that would be the fear in some people's minds. When it comes to looking at the questions that I have put before it, I hope the Government does take some cognisance of the heritage policy of the ACT Liberal Party. I know it is a fact that is resented by some in this Assembly that the Liberal Party has raised heritage issues at this stage.
The fact is, Mr Speaker, that our heritage policy is probably the toughest of any that was put before the people of the ACT at the recent election. I give, as one example of that toughness, the fact that, rather than have subordinate or delegated bodies making decisions on heritage questions, particularly about whether major heritage assets should be put on or taken off the ACT register, our policy calls for this Assembly, the supreme decision making body within the ACT, to make that decision.
I submit, respectfully, Mr Speaker, that in that respect it goes much further than any of the other heritage policies that we have seen. I commend to the Government the course of action that I have suggested. I hope this will not need to be raised again, and I hope that in the next few days, if not weeks, we can see legislation and guidelines which will provide protection, urgently needed protection, for Canberra's heritage assets.
MS FOLLETT (Chief Minister) (3.36): I am very pleased indeed that this question has been raised so early in the life of this Assembly, and I am not one of the people to whom Mr Humphries referred when he said that there was resentment that it has been raised. I do not resent it at all. Like Mr Stefaniak, I have lived in the ACT since 1952. The only difference was that I was not born here. I have seen many changes here and I have seen many aspects of Canberra that have been torn down, changed beyond recognition and so on - like the Capitol theatre at Manuka.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .