Parliament Buildings

Press, Volume CXV, Issue 33933, 28 August 1975, Page 12

Parliament Buildings

If the main building at Parliament Buildings is shown to be in danger of collapsing in a moderately serious earthquake it should be demolished and replaced as soon as possible. The orderly continuation of Government is too important for the country to accept the risk of severe disruption in an earthquake. Damage to the building, far short of a major disaster, might render the building unusable. Nor is it fair to expect members of Parliament and others who work in the building to place themselves at unreasonable and foreseeable risk. Now that doubts have been aroused about the safety of the building, the Prime Minister should report as soon as possible on the Ministry of Works’ findings. Opinions of independent engineers might be sought as well, for it will be no small undertaking to demolish and rebuild Parliament. If the danger has been proved, plans for rebuilding should proceed as quickly as possible.

Regard for the present building ought not to be given undue weight. The building has not been completed since the first stage was finished in 1912: it does not blend particularly well with the new 13-storey “ beehive ” rising beside it. Even if the present building is not an earthquake hazard, it will have to be modified considerably as the size of Parliament continues to increase and the demands of others who share the old building, including the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, exceed the space available. The exterior of the present building is handsome enough, but it is not especially distinguished and has taken on the look of an appendage to its neighbours. The interior is distinctly run down and substantial, renovation, calculated to maintain its best features, would do little to improve its comfort or efficiency. Enthusiasts for the preservation of old buildings might well confine their attention to the older General Assembly Library north of the main block.

The shape of the old building is such that demolition and reconstruction in stages might be possible to avoid undue disruption of Parliament’s activities after Ministers have moved to the “ beehive ” building The same site should certainly be used, not only because of its historical associations, but because a close working relationship has to be maintained between the legislative and executive branches of government. The physical conjunction of the two branches is an essential part of the working of Parliament. Improvements in building design and techniques should enable the building of a new Parliament which would combine the best qualities of the old with the safety and efficiency which modern government requires and deserves