Page 3115 - Week 11 - Tuesday, 10 September 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
That leaves only four recommendations, the first of which is that, whenever possible and in consultation with the ACT Heritage Committee, the walls at the Orroral Valley space tracking station be left standing to a height of 20 centimetres above the ground level, for historical purposes. I am fascinated to know how the committee has determined upon a figure of 20 centimetres. I am a little old-fashioned and I know that that equates, for all intents and purposes, to about eight inches. I do not understand how that height was decided. Why not two feet or one foot? Perhaps my problem here is that you can take the man out of urban services but you cannot take urban services out of the man. I tend to agree with the department's response that the retention of dwarf walls will add to the demolition and recurrent maintenance costs.
Mr Wood: That is the Government's response; that is what we said.
MR DUBY: Absolutely. I agree with the department's response. A recommendation that eight inches of brick wall be left around the perimeter of a concrete slab in the middle of the bush is so specific that I am surprised it ever became the majority view of nine members of this committee. I assume that it was nine, but probably at the end of the day it was only three. Nevertheless, I agree with the Government's response. In my view, it is a rather foolish recommendation.
They also go on to recommend that the Department of Urban Services investigate and report back to the committee on the possibility of leaving part of the main building at the Honeysuckle Creek space tracking station standing as a shell devoid of internal structures for historical purposes, and that, wherever possible, the walls at the station be left standing to a height of 20 centimetres above the ground. What we currently have at Honeysuckle Creek is just that - a building that is a historical shell. In effect, that is all that is there now. It has been vandalised and has had all possible building materials removed from it over the years.
What that recommendation really means is to leave the building as it is and not to demolish it. I agree also with the Government's response - and I am probably going to be in the minority here - that retention of the shell of the main building is simply not practical. The very reason the Committee recommended that the demolition take place indicates that to leave some walls standing is not practical and, indeed, in many places is dangerous. The building has deteriorated to a great degree and there is no question that future vandalism is unavoidable.
I agree with the Government's response that demolition to its concrete slab, which leaves an archaeological outline in the countryside and which is fully documented by the Heritage Committee, amply meets the requirements of proper historical conservation. There is a further recommendation
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .