Page 4276 - Week 15 - Tuesday, 20 November 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
is good at promising things, but it is not very good at delivering legislation. I refer to the promised human rights legislation which Mr Collaery would like to have in this place.
Mr Speaker, it is interesting to note that, of all the submissions received, all of the community organisations and all of the government agencies argued for the retention of the current policy. How can it be said that the evidence has been properly weighed up? There were 37 submissions for front fences and everybody else was against them. It does not make sense to me.
The case has not been made out for changing the policy, and it will be changed to suit only a few citizens. The costs will be high - for policing the Act and, more importantly, in terms of the degradation of our city. There is no doubt about that. Who will benefit? If we talk about popularity, as with the schools issue, I would be happy to go to the polls on this one, too, because I think the people of the ACT do not want front fences. There will always be the few who will benefit, but the majority will suffer because of what will happen to the city.
Mr Speaker, I referred to the arguments against the changes to existing policy. The main argument, as is described in the report at page 14, is that it would affect the garden city character that has made this place a unique city today. It is one of the great hidden secrets of the world, I suggest. As I said, all community organisations and government organisations argued that the current policy should be retained.
The ACT Heritage Committee, which the Residents Rally has been seen to support in the past, on my recollection, argued that it was essential that the current restrictions on residential fences be maintained so as to ensure the continuity of Canberra,s planning ideas. The Heritage Committee stressed the need to pay particular attention to maintaining the policy in heritage areas because the value of these areas is attributed in part to the absence of front fences. It was noted that 63 per cent of the illegal fences were found in inner suburban areas of the ACT, and that is also mentioned earlier in the report.
Mr Speaker, the National Trust of Australia (ACT) expressed the opinion that no significant grounds had been offered "to suggest the current policy be discontinued and the historic tradition of no front fences be not maintained". The report says:
The National Trust informed the Committee that the concept of no front fences was an integral part of Canberra,s planning and historic integrity and should not be seen as an isolated component of the planning system in Canberra.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .