Page 4081 - Week 11 - Thursday, 21 September 2017
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
This proposed privatisation puts our heritage at risk because, sadly, some developers push heritage protection rules as far as they can and will fight the National Capital Authority to have their plans win through. This privatisation puts at risk the future government ownership of the rest of the parliamentary precinct. If these two sales go through without strong local resistance, what is going to stop the federal government there? There is a lot more of the parliamentary precinct that could be privatised.
Most people will know the John Gorton building. It is the large office block across the road from the National Gallery. It is also a heritage building. Work on it started in 1927. It was designed as the first large-scale public service building in Canberra, to house eight of the departments that were moving from Melbourne. If the East and West Block buildings can be sold, so can the John Gorton building. The Treasury building on the other side of the parliamentary triangle, just off Commonwealth Avenue might also go. The car park on Commonwealth Avenue between the Treasury building and Albert Hall may as well be sold off as well if this pathway continues. The point is that the East and West Block buildings are a precedent. If they are sold, what will be safe from the federal government?
One of the questions or points of concern about my motion might be that the parliamentary precinct lacks life. Members might wonder if privatisation is a good solution to that. Parts of the parliamentary precinct do lack life. Along the lakefront, it is busy. It is a popular place to run, walk and cycle, especially on the weekend. The national attractions are also busy, but most of the time they are only open during daylight hours. Behind that, it is pretty quiet. But is privatisation the way to fix that? I do not believe so. Privatisation can mean loss of control, not more life.
Both East Block and West Block would be good for a careful refitting into hotels, but that does not need privatisation. A long lease, for example of 20 years, could work out far better. Many of the international hotel chains do not want to own buildings because it ties up too much capital. Instead, they want a lease that is long enough to make sure that they can earn back the cost of the initial refit.
If the goal was to bring life to the parliamentary precinct, the federal government could seek expressions of interest for long leases from hotel operators. Once you lose control through a sale, that option is gone. It is quite likely that the buyers will be office funds, especially given that one of the buildings will be sold with a lease for the National Archives to reoccupy. That means that we get the worst of both worlds—privatisation and risk to heritage, with no benefit to the precinct.
I want to address a second possible concern members might raise about my motion: that it is too late to do anything. I do not believe it is too late. The federal government has started the sale process, but the buildings are not yet sold. It is not too late for the federal government to change the process to an expression of interest for long-term leases. But for this to happen we need to act quickly and decisively. The federal government is not going to back down on this privatisation of our national heritage unless it hears clearly and loudly that it is strongly against the wishes of the ACT community and the ACT Legislative Assembly.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video