Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 1 Hansard (14 February) . . Page.. 177 ..

MR HARGREAVES (continuing):

Mr Speaker, I believe that the minister ought to agree to the motion and not let his ego get in the way. He ought to assert his authority and use his power to protect the Red Hill precinct. It is well known that this minister has a reputation without par for using call-in powers. He uses call-in powers willy-nilly, at the beck and call of heaven knows whom. In this sense, he ought to use his protective powers now that the encroachment has started in the Red Hill precinct. I know that that would be quite the opposite of what he normally does. Normally, he uses his call-in powers so that some vested interests can make a quid out of it, but in this instance his ministry of heritage ought to take precedent over his ministry of planning.

Mr Speaker, in opposing the motion by Mr Corbell, the minister is derelict in his duty as minister for heritage and negligent in endorsing what are, in fact, mutually exclusive concepts. We said, "Don't do it." He said, "We will do a review. Oh, the review says okay," so he is now going with that one. Of course, he could be acting with some sort of contempt for the wishes of the Assembly as well. I suspect that his use of semantics around the word "review" is merely an attempt to weasel out of complying with the Assembly's wish. I would like to see him rise above that.

What we are all about here tonight, Mr Speaker, is not something which is a populist activity. It is not going to win any votes for anybody. Mr Corbell is genuinely attempting to protect the heritage of the Red Hill precinct and he has received support from at least half the crossbench. Mr Smyth says that he is interested in protecting the streetscape, that that is what heritage is all about. I think that is a limited view. He is putting his own interpretation on what he should protect, not what it is generally accepted that he should protect.

He says that all you can see when you drive around the suburbs is the streets, the trees and the fronts of houses. Clearly, the minister has not looked off Red Hill and seen the vista that you get there. It is that sort of vista that we are trying to protect here. We are also trying to protect the intrinsic history of the buildings in the Red Hill precinct. Adding 21st century dual occupancies on to the back of what are early 20^th century constructions ought not to be provided for.

Mr Speaker, I am not urging the minister to do a backflip or to back down, but merely to acknowledge that what we are all about here is trying to protect an area of Canberra which is unique. We have seen the whole face of Griffith/Narrabundah change because of the introduction of new types of dwellings there. We have all laughed at the concept in Canberra that if something is more than 30 years old, we should pull it down and put up something new. I think we all reject that.

I would urge the minister to come on board with the sentiments expressed in this motion by Mr Corbell and, once and for all, just instruct the department to do as the original motion asked. If he agreed with that approach, there would be no need for this Assembly to insist on him complying with a previous resolution of this place. Mr Speaker, with that I urge the Assembly not to accept this as a precedent. It is not a precedent. It is not a case of the Labor Party setting the rules for later. It is a case of us trying to protect the Red Hill precinct. I urge him to come on board.

MR SPEAKER: Is leave granted for Mr Kaine to speak again? There being no objection, you may proceed, Mr Kaine.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .