Page 3119 - Week 11 - Tuesday, 10 September 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
standing as a shell, will remain standing for the next 50 to 100 years. It is a very substantial building. It is something we should look at seriously to see whether it is possible to pass it on to these people.
One objection I have had is that this is now a national park and you cannot have people residing in a national park. As members are aware, the road skirts farmlands and does not penetrate very far at all into the park area. The location of Honeysuckle Creek is very close to the border of that park, and I believe that we could make an exception in this circumstance. A major meditation centre in the ACT is a very worthwhile project, and if these people can come forward with the money I think we should at least give them the opportunity. I ask members to take that into account before the final decision is taken. We could put the bulldozer through every other spot, but I ask you to see whether we could retain that major building.
MR HUMPHRIES (9.51): I also am a little saddened by the prospect of having to demolish the remains of the tracking station in Namadgi National Park. We all acknowledge the value that site has for heritage purposes. It is interesting to note that the Conservation, Heritage and Environment Committee has not really had a heritage reference before. This is the first reference that might be described as having significant heritage implications, and it was interesting, therefore, to read the report and to look at the balance the committee attempted to strike between the cost of preserving heritage and the need to preserve heritage.
In this case the balance has been struck more or less in the direction of acknowledging cost as the primary consideration and allowing only the most minimal preservation to occur. Obviously, that has been dictated by the fact that the building has been substantially demolished already, and in this case it has meant that the best that can be suggested is the effective demolition of the buildings that remain down to foundation level.
I believe that the preservation of heritage sites does need to be a matter of ongoing consideration, balancing the desire to preserve all that may be of value or significance against the desire to preserve the best, the most significant, examples of particular things, whether they be particular styles of building, particular features of a way of life or a way of doing things, or in this case an important facility in the Australian context in man's conquest of space. I believe that in this case a plaque, as suggested by the committee, is a good compromise, and I support that.
The commercial value of the site is very limited, and I therefore agree with the committee that it is not appropriate to consider having the site used by a commercial or private interest, broadly speaking. Mr Speaker, as you yourself suggested in the debate, I do not
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .