Download Fragment

Wednesday, 23 November 2011
Page: 13585

Mr SIMPKINS (Cowan) (12:43): 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.

Mr SIMPKINS: 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The preferred option of the committee is, however, for the ordinance to be repealed and the CNMC abolished.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.