Page 132 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 24 May 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
in keeping with their heritage value. It is possible to renovate these areas to make sure that they reflect the history and character of our city.
In relation to this matter it is important to consider that in the case of the Barton area - for example, the house at 37 Telopea Park West - if changes had been made to the legislation in relation to the Unit Titles Ordinance, so that instead of the mandatory four strata titles for a redevelopment it had been changed to two or even three in particular heritage areas, it would have been possible for that particular house to be saved from becoming the pile of rubble that we unfortunately saw on the front page of the "Canberra Times" soon after this Assembly was put in place.
That, Mr Speaker, is something that we in the Rally will be seeking to have done. I am sure that people like the Gallaghers are very concerned about living in the areas where they have spent a considerable amount of time. Under the changes that the Rally proposed throughout the campaign, it would have been possible for the Gallaghers to retain their lifestyle in that Barton area; it would have been possible for that house to be renovated in much the same way as the guidelines here. If those guidelines had applied to the Barton area prior to these present days it would have stopped some of the, shall I say, unfortunate renovations to some of these areas because they would have been covered by these guidelines and they would have been able to improve and retain the dramatic streetscape of this very important part of early Canberra.
Mr Speaker, I do not think that there is any need for me to comment further on this issue. It is good to see that we have a bipartisan approach to it because it is very important. I look forward with great interest to the heritage legislation. We in the Rally will be looking at this very, very carefully to ensure that the interests of all groups, not just the residents who live in these particular areas but also those who wish to develop these areas in the process of urban consolidation, about which we will no doubt have to be concerned as time marches on, can be considered and taken into account with this heritage legislation.
MR BERRY (Minister for Community Services and Health) (4.08): Mr Speaker, I rise as a supporter of heritage legislation as well. However, I would like also to issue a caution to this Assembly on the question of how heritage legislation is developed and how it might affect the people of the ACT in future years. The older suburbs of Canberra, it is true, are affected by the growth of the city and the willingness of developers to look for sites which, if redeveloped, would improve the power and influence of the rich. However, heritage legislation should not be seen as a measure to conserve the place of residence for those rich and powerful people who seem more often interested in forcing the value of their property upwards.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .