Page 1335 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 16 April 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MRS GRASSBY: I have a pipeline into your office. You forget that we have a pipeline into your office. Any argument to fence that gift fails to remember that the initial purpose of the stage was that it was for the people of Canberra. Moreover, it is clear that to construct a fence around Stage '88 would leave a significant section of Commonwealth Park unable to be used by the public at any time. This also would be a strange decision to make in relation to one of our best public facilities in the central Canberra area.
Further, the aesthetic quality of that part of Commonwealth Park would be ruined and most unpleasing to the eye. This argument is also maintained by the ACT group of the Australian Institute of Landscape Architects. Let us face the facts. If anyone should know about this matter, it must be the experts in that institute. Mr Speaker, it is worth noting paragraph 2.16 of the report, which reads:
The Australian Institute of Landscape Architects (ACT group) (AILA) expressed the view that as the stage was a gift from the Commonwealth it is not in the spirit of the gift, or the interests of the residents of the ACT, for the area to be permanently fenced for the exclusive use of special interest groups. The AILA objected strongly to the fencing of a portion of Commonwealth Park that alienated that portion of the park from use by the general public.
Even if you put up a fence that can be taken down and put up, the fact is that it will still alienate people from using that area at any time, or all the time. Paragraph 2.17 states:
Mr J. Grey, Consultant Landscape Architect, and a Fellow of the AILA, expressed concern that fencing of any part of Commonwealth Park would be contrary to the intentions of the park's designer, Dame Sylvia Crowe.
Of course, it is only fair to note that the prime argument in favour of fencing the area - even if I do not personally agree with it - is a simple one. It is to fence off the stage as a means of ensuring at least a partial recovery of its running expenses. I suppose it is understandable, to an extent, that in this time of economic restraint and economic rationalism it would be seen that it would be able to pay for it. However, I still believe that Stage '88, as a gift, must be accessible to those it was given to - in other words, the people of Canberra - and that it is not just for a special interest group.
I also strongly believe that fencing the area would make the park less accessible and it would not be pleasing. Let us face it, Mr Speaker; there are enough ugly things in the world. We only have to look across the house.
MR SPEAKER: Order!
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .