Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories I have pleasure in presenting the committee’s report entitled Etched in Stone? Inquiry into the Administration of the National Memorials Ordinance 1928, together with minutes of proceedings.I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report.

Leave granted.

The National Memorials Ordinance 1928 defines the membership and responsibilities of the Canberra National Memorials Committee—the CNMC. The CNMC is the body responsible for approving national memorials, an important responsibility given that national memorials represent a permanent symbol of the nation's history and our aspirations.

The inquiry arose out of public concern about the processes underpinning the work of the CNMC. The committee was tasked with examining the membership and decision-making processes of the CNMC. If changes were recommended, transition arrangements for current memorial proposals were also to be considered. The evidence presented to the committee indicates that there are significant problems with the ordinance and the operation of the CNMC. There are problems associated with the membership of the CNMC. There is a lack of structure in decision making; a lack of transparency in decision making; questionable treatment of heritage issues; doubts about access to independent expert advice; an absence of public participation; a lack of supporting documentation such as plans and guidelines; inadequate definition of key issues, including the basic question of what constitutes a national memorial; and a lack of effective parliamentary oversight.

The report raises two possibilities in addressing these issues. Firstly, the ordinance could be retained, but with the ordinance and the CNMC being substantially modernised. The committee has addressed this possibility in some detail, and indicated the reforms required to modernise the ordinance and make its operation more effective.

The preferred option of the committee is, however, for the ordinance to be repealed and the CNMC abolished. In its place, a new model for approving national memorials would be adopted, based upon the approvals process for memorials in Washington DC.

An Australian commemorative works act would define a commemorative work; define the legislative process by which commemoratives intent is established and approved by parliament; establish and define the responsibilities of the National Memorials Advisory Committee, an expert body capable of giving high-level advice on any memorial proposal; give legal standing to the criteria by which commemorative works are assessed and approved; define the process for establishing the character and location of memorials; define the responsibilities of proponents in meeting design, construction and maintenance costs; and define the role of the joint standing committee in the final approvals process for memorials.

Each proposal for a national memorial would require a motion to be introduced in each house of parliament approving its commemorative intent. Each proposal would be referred to the joint standing committee for consideration and report. The National Memorials Advisory Committee would assess each proposal against the criteria for commemorative works, while the National Capital Authority would be responsible for ensuring that the project was financially viable. Upon the joint standing committee's report, the commemorative intent of the National Memorial would be either rejected or approved.

Once approved, the task of identifying a location for the memorial and initiating a process for its design would pass to the National Capital Authority. This would involve extensive public consultation, independent expert input, and environmental and heritage approvals. Once a design and location were settled, the proposal would be referred to the joint standing committee for consideration and approval on behalf of the parliament. The committee's approval would be final.

The prominent role in this scheme given to the joint standing committee is based on its representative mixture of national and local members, its ability to represent the views of parliament and its ability to access public and expert opinion through normal inquiry processes. The committee believes its preferred option would give parliament and the people a simple, robust and transparent mechanism for assessing and approving national memorials as enduring symbols of national commemoration.

I take this opportunity to thank the secretariat for their hard work—Secretary Mr Peter Stephens, Inquiry Secretary Dr William Pender and the whole of the secretariat staff. There were a number of complicated, tricky matters involved in this inquiry, and the secretariat's great work was of excellent assistance to the members of the committee. I also thank Senator Pratt, the chair of the committee, and all members of the committee, including my friend Dick Adams, the honourable member for Lyons. In particular, I thank the ACT members of the committee, Dr Leigh, Ms Brodtmann and Senator Gary Humphries. Senator Humphries's work in giving us some insights into the way things work in Washington—in many ways, the model for what we are looking at—was a great step forward for the committee. It was good to see that, on a bipartisan program, the whole committee acknowledged the need for this fundamental change that we are proposing.

On behalf of the committee I commend the report to the House.

Gai Brodtmann (Canberra, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—An inquiry into the National Memorials Ordinance was long overdue. This ordinance, first promulgated in 1928, governs the decisions made on which memorials can be constructed in the ACT. It does this through the creation of a specific committee with responsibility for these decisions—that is, the Canberra National Memorials Committee. The ordinance has not been significantly reviewed since its creation, and the overwhelming evidence before the committee has been that it is no longer functioning in a manner that best suits its purpose.

In the short time that I have been the member for Canberra, many people have contacted me with questions about the process by which national memorials in Canberra are approved. This is not to say that Canberrans are against the commissioning of national memorials here. Nothing could be further from the truth. We Canberrans accept the role we play as custodians of the national capital. It is a role that we relish and one that we take seriously. We also understand and agree that all Australians have a legitimate interest in decisions on commemorating the significant events that have made our nation. However, much has changed since this ordinance was promulgated and Canberra was founded.

Canberra has grown to be more than just a quaint place filled with memorials and the federal parliament. We are a living community with our own identity. There are now families with generations of residence in Canberra. The Canberra of 1928 was little more than a concept, and the full vision of Australia's national capital was yet to be realised. Indeed, the Canberra and Canberrans of 1928 could not be more different from their counterparts today. Canberra's population has become larger than what was dreamed of by Walter Burley Griffin when he first put pen to paper. Instead of a population of 50,000, Canberra today is a growing city of hundreds of thousands. We have a citizenry deeply interested in the aesthetic of our city and strongly committed to the future of its built environment. And we now have self-government, with responsibility for the planning and development of that future environment.

There have also been many changes to the national political dynamic that mean there are demands on the time of our federal leaders that in 1928 would not have been deemed possible. This means that they are not as well placed as they were in 1928 to discharge their duties on the Canberra National Memorials Committee.

These changes, taken together, have created gaps and uncertainties in the decision-making process on memorials. These just cannot be adequately addressed by the current ordinance. Indeed, this can be quite clearly seen in the level of interest and vigorous debate surrounding one particular proposal. While I wish in no way to detract from those concerned by that proposal, I believe the controversy is a symptom of a larger problem. The problem is that there is a lack of adequate process and transparency concerning the way in which the Canberra National Memorials Committee operates. This process was appropriate for its day and has served the country well, but it clearly does not meet modern standards expected by Australians and strongly desired by Canberrans.

To this end I fully endorse the chief recommendation of this report that the National Memorials Ordinance 1928 be replaced by a new commemorative works act. I also agree completely with the view of the committee that as an interim measure those vacant positions open to citizens of the ACT on the Canberra National Memorials Committee be filled. Surprisingly, it appears that none have ever been appointed. Overall I am pleased with the direction of the committee and the recommendations it has made. In particular, the recommendations provide for comprehensive public consultation. They also would establish a rigorous two-step process of evaluation, providing greater assurance of quality and financial viability.

The recommendations also set out appropriate parliamentary oversight of memorials. This provides not only assurances on accountability but also ensures there is a national interest oversight. The recommendations thus provide the necessary and overdue modernisation of the process of national memorials and provide reassurance to my electorate that their views are valued.

I thank the committee chair, Senator Pratt, for her leadership in this inquiry and all the members of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories for their work on the inquiry. I also thank all those people who took the time to make submissions to the inquiry and to appear as witnesses. Finally, I would like to express my deep thanks to the support of the secretariat staff, in particular Mr Peter Stephens and Dr William Pender, for their support during this inquiry.

Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the House take note of the report.

Ms Catherine King (Ballarat, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In accordance with standing order 39, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.