Government House Precinct Land Dedication Bill
10/02/2016
The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: I take the floor on behalf of Dignity for Disability to say a few words on this bill. I doubt that they are going to be anywhere near as poetic as the contribution of our previous speaker, but I will give it a crack.
The passage of this legislation would appear to be a necessary precursor for the construction of the proposed ANZAC Centenary Memorial Walk. However, as is well known, that project was approved by the government in January 2014—some two years ago. I understand that it received planning approval in July 2015. The Public Works Committee reported on the project on 2 July 2015. Construction started in August and its completion is imminent. The new memorial walk is due to be ready for ANZAC Day of this very year.
Nonetheless, this place is only now considering proposed legislative changes to enable the eastern boundary of the Government House grounds to be shifted 10 metres to the west in order to create the site for this already virtually finished project. The merits of this project notwithstanding, like the previous speaker I see that the question surely must be asked: what is the justification for dealing with this bill in retrospect?
It does not appear to be the case that the government belatedly became aware of the need for the legislation. As soon as the project was conceived—as I said, over two years ago—it would have been evident that the project needed to occupy a slice of the Government House grounds. When the memorial walk’s design was finalised, the exact extent of the reduction was known. The Public Works Committee’s report on the project states, on page 7:
The grounds of Government House are legislated under the Governm ent House Domain Dedication Act 1927. The Act will require legislative amendment to reflect the new boundary of Government House 10 metres west of its current location.
In the absence of any other explanation, the clear implication is that the government considers that the role and stature of this parliament is unimportant. An uncharitable person—certainly one less charitable than I—might suggest that parliament is being treated with some contempt. There is another aspect of the ANZAC Centenary Memorial Walk project about which I would like to express some concern.
It is the intention to relocate the Dardanelles monument from Lundie Gardens, in the south Parklands, to the zone of the memorial walk. The Dardanelles monument, unveiled on 7 September 2015, was the first in Australia and New Zealand, I understand, to commemorate the First World War. It was moved a short distance in 1940. Nonetheless, in its present location it has links to the military history of the south Parklands that dates back to 1885. It has been the site of annual memorial services on the anniversary of its dedication. In addition, the monument was conceived for a garden setting. It was created by the Wattle League and was originally surrounded by the Gallipoli memorial wattle grove.
Mr Walter Dollman, grandson of the commander of the South Australian contingent (27th Battalion AIF) in the Dardanelles, where the monument was dedicated, has argued that moving the monument will practically destroy its primary context, its builders’ intention, and its secondary context, being its use since. Mr Dollman’s views highlight the important point that any built memorial, not least one over 100 years old, cannot be considered as a disembodied object that will simply retain its significance wherever it is placed.
Apart from the other aspects of its heritage mentioned here, the Dardanelles monument has been a landmark in the corner of the Parklands for many decades. Relocating it to a new hard-paved area to be grouped with a cluster of other First World War memorials will, I understand, detract from the value of the monument itself and from its historic original site.
I register my objection on behalf of people like Mr Dollman to this aspect of the ANZAC Centenary Memorial Walk project. Notwithstanding that objection, and the objection to the time at which this legislation has come to the parliament, I indicate Dignity for Disability’s support for this bill.
