Ms CARTER - 2000-08-16
Can he advise members of the recommendations of the Heritage Advisory Council regarding the former Wesleyan Church site, and the government’s response to those recommendations?
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, it is important that Territorians understand that the government has for many years attempted to preserve the heritage values of the former church. We have been to court attempting to have the owners carry out restoration works. We have negotiated at length with the site owners and the site lessees for a workable solution. We certainly considered all forms of proposals regarding saving this former church.
In June of this year, media representatives would remember that I took them on site to advise that government, in conjunction with the site owners and lessees, had come to an agreement which would preserve the heritage values of this building. In order to fulfil my intentions of seeing this important part of the Territory’s history preserved, I announced to the House that I would seek revoke the heritage declaration of the former church. I also announced the intention to move the building from its present site to a location at Darwin’s Botanic Gardens.
I again stress that the government has been open about its intention to save this building from the outset. Due process is very important and the public process that I initiated through the Heritage Conservation Act provided people with a period of 28 days to comment on my clearly-articulated proposals. It gave Territorians the opportunity to tell the Heritage Advisory Council, and through them the minister and the government, what they thought of the proposed revocation, relocation and restoration of the Wesleyan Church.
I can inform the House that 20 submissions were received. Seven of those responses were from Territorians. Of those seven, five were against the removal of the church and two supported it. I think it is important to quote one of those supporting submissions because it comes from a person who was a former member of the Heritage Advisory Council and the former director of the National Trust in the NT. I quote from his letter:
This is to advise that I am supportive of the proposals of revocation and declaration as published. Notwithstanding the heritage values of the former church lying predominantly upon the site on which it is presently located, the present attitude of the Reverend Gale Hall, as opposed to that of the wide range of members in the Uniting Church and the AXA group, are such that the continued existence of the structure is, at best, tenuous. The current lack of any maintenance and its continued deterioration fail to provide any long term security for the structure and, accordingly, it is seriously compromised.
I am therefore of the opinion that the only chance for its survival is that course of action proposed – i.e., its relocation and the conservation and interpretation. As you would realise from my previous time on the Heritage Advisory Council and as director of the National Trust (NT), this was no easy matter to decide and is counter to my attitude regarding the heritage values of this particular structure. However, in looking at the situation in a realistic sense rather than as a purist, and in discounting the possibility of any future change in attitude, this seems the only course of action that might conserve the historic structure.
I think that is very pertinent. The writer was Mr Bob Alford, who is currently a heritage consultant.
Throughout the process of this issue I have followed due process. What further process can the government undertake? We have done an assessment of the significance of the heritage listing. We have offered grants to the owners. We have negotiated. We have had letters, we have had meetings, in an effort to resolve the issue. We have done all of those things - even issued, for the sake of Territorians who might be interested, a formal direction to repair the building. But as members would know, that was overturned in the courts.
What process is left? Probably the only process that is left, if there is no course of action taken, is that this building will continue to deteriorate until there is nothing left. As minister responsible for heritage and for the Conservation Act, I am certainly not willing to allow that to happen. That is why I have stated my clear intentions to relocate the building and to restore it to its original form. The future of that building is in jeopardy. On the site and in its current state it could be wiped out by various means, whether it is a strong storm or a fire or accidental destruction.
I am not going to delay this matter any longer. I have taken the view that the building must be relocated. To do this I am required to revoke the current heritage declaration. This is a prefabricated building built over 100 years ago – prefabricated, therefore portable. It was designed and constructed in Adelaide and set up on site here as a prefabricated building. It will be dismantled and removed to a site in the Botanic Gardens, and certainly restored, with contributions from both the owners of the site and the lessees of the site as well.
This building has survived cyclones. It has survived bombings of Darwin. I am determined to see that the building’s continued survival is ongoing in a restored state on a new site, for the benefit of future Territorians.
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, it is important that Territorians understand that the government has for many years attempted to preserve the heritage values of the former church. We have been to court attempting to have the owners carry out restoration works. We have negotiated at length with the site owners and the site lessees for a workable solution. We certainly considered all forms of proposals regarding saving this former church.
In June of this year, media representatives would remember that I took them on site to advise that government, in conjunction with the site owners and lessees, had come to an agreement which would preserve the heritage values of this building. In order to fulfil my intentions of seeing this important part of the Territory’s history preserved, I announced to the House that I would seek revoke the heritage declaration of the former church. I also announced the intention to move the building from its present site to a location at Darwin’s Botanic Gardens.
I again stress that the government has been open about its intention to save this building from the outset. Due process is very important and the public process that I initiated through the Heritage Conservation Act provided people with a period of 28 days to comment on my clearly-articulated proposals. It gave Territorians the opportunity to tell the Heritage Advisory Council, and through them the minister and the government, what they thought of the proposed revocation, relocation and restoration of the Wesleyan Church.
I can inform the House that 20 submissions were received. Seven of those responses were from Territorians. Of those seven, five were against the removal of the church and two supported it. I think it is important to quote one of those supporting submissions because it comes from a person who was a former member of the Heritage Advisory Council and the former director of the National Trust in the NT. I quote from his letter:
This is to advise that I am supportive of the proposals of revocation and declaration as published. Notwithstanding the heritage values of the former church lying predominantly upon the site on which it is presently located, the present attitude of the Reverend Gale Hall, as opposed to that of the wide range of members in the Uniting Church and the AXA group, are such that the continued existence of the structure is, at best, tenuous. The current lack of any maintenance and its continued deterioration fail to provide any long term security for the structure and, accordingly, it is seriously compromised.
I am therefore of the opinion that the only chance for its survival is that course of action proposed – i.e., its relocation and the conservation and interpretation. As you would realise from my previous time on the Heritage Advisory Council and as director of the National Trust (NT), this was no easy matter to decide and is counter to my attitude regarding the heritage values of this particular structure. However, in looking at the situation in a realistic sense rather than as a purist, and in discounting the possibility of any future change in attitude, this seems the only course of action that might conserve the historic structure.
I think that is very pertinent. The writer was Mr Bob Alford, who is currently a heritage consultant.
Throughout the process of this issue I have followed due process. What further process can the government undertake? We have done an assessment of the significance of the heritage listing. We have offered grants to the owners. We have negotiated. We have had letters, we have had meetings, in an effort to resolve the issue. We have done all of those things - even issued, for the sake of Territorians who might be interested, a formal direction to repair the building. But as members would know, that was overturned in the courts.
What process is left? Probably the only process that is left, if there is no course of action taken, is that this building will continue to deteriorate until there is nothing left. As minister responsible for heritage and for the Conservation Act, I am certainly not willing to allow that to happen. That is why I have stated my clear intentions to relocate the building and to restore it to its original form. The future of that building is in jeopardy. On the site and in its current state it could be wiped out by various means, whether it is a strong storm or a fire or accidental destruction.
I am not going to delay this matter any longer. I have taken the view that the building must be relocated. To do this I am required to revoke the current heritage declaration. This is a prefabricated building built over 100 years ago – prefabricated, therefore portable. It was designed and constructed in Adelaide and set up on site here as a prefabricated building. It will be dismantled and removed to a site in the Botanic Gardens, and certainly restored, with contributions from both the owners of the site and the lessees of the site as well.
This building has survived cyclones. It has survived bombings of Darwin. I am determined to see that the building’s continued survival is ongoing in a restored state on a new site, for the benefit of future Territorians.
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016