Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The internationally renowned architect responsible for the design of Parliament House has condemned plans to fortify its ministerial wing with a steel security fence and two concrete guardhouses, saying the proposals are "offensive" and will profoundly change the democratic character of the iconic building.
In the course of a recent visit to Parliament House, architect Romaldo Giurgola expressed concern that the underlying message of his design for Parliament House - that of "growing, teaching about democracy" - was being "diluted" by new security measures and other changes implemented by the much criticised Department of Parliamentary Services.
According to notes of remarks made by Mr Giurgola while walking around Parliament House in April, the award winning architect said he was "sad" about the planned security fence to screen the ministerial wing and prime minister's office and that he hoped "another solution" would be found.
"A fence has only one message, where security by a glass wall or light sensors could be more inclusive and not send messages about people feeling unsafe and wanting to close the communication [and] openness," Mr Giurgola said.
"This building does not turn its back on anyone – you can enter from every side, there is no 'back of the building'. Every side, north, south, east and west is open, just as the first Australians sitting on this hill could welcome people from every direction."
Mr Giurgola also expressed concern about modifications to the building to strengthen security between the ministerial wing and the rest of the building and to step up protective measures more generally.
"Parliamentarians can behave badly if they are not out in the open to public view," Mr Giurgola said. "It is easy to misbehave if you are not looking at people directly in their faces. People want to see their representatives working well, and want to be proud of their choice of representative – isn't this what democracy aspires to?"
Mr Giurgola said there was a "sad confusion" about the future of Parliament House because "planners may not understand the full message about openness and accountability".
He said the Australian Parliament was "the only parliament house world-wide that incorporated this openness, so a unique aspect of our original aspiration may be lost".
Original government specifications for Parliament House did contemplate a security fence around the ministerial wing but this was not favoured by Mr Giurgola. In the interests of maintaining the openness of the original architectural design, it was never constructed.
A Senate committee is currently examining a $108 million security upgrade at Parliament House. The planned 2.6 metre high steel fence and guard houses to screen the ministerial wing have already encountered strong criticism, with University of Canberra adjunct professor of architecture Rodney Moss likening the proposal to putting a fence across the front steps of the Opera House.
"The current proposal to fence the entrance to the prime minister's wing of the Parliament not only diminishes the Parliament House as a symbol of Australian democracy but clearly signals we are compromising our daily life due to the threat of terrorism," Mr Moss said in a written submission. "There must be a smarter way to address the issue at hand."
The Senate inquiry was established after independent senator Nick Xenophon and the Labor opposition combined to refer it to the committee for investigation.
In his remarks at Parliament House in April, Mr Giurgola also expressed concern about decisions by the Department of Parliamentary Services to replace original, purpose-designed furnishings and in some cases introduce furniture from Old Parliament House.
"New Parliament House is about the future," Mr Giurgola said.
"It would be sad if old furniture and paintings of those who governed in the past are brought here – Old Parliament House is the right place for them. Old Parliament House has the role of museum, remembering history that happened there … [We] need to think ahead about the messages for the future."
The Department of Parliamentary Services has come under sustained criticism for mismanagement and a series of blunders that included senior officials allegedly giving misleading evidence to Senate committees.
The former head of the department, Carol Mills, was found by a Senate committee to have presided over an organisation that was described as "deeply dysfunctional".
Ms Mills' employment was terminated last month.
