pdf download - Westerly Magazine

claimed "Most people are sick and tired of theBarracks Archway controversy", but then headded:"The government's handling of the questionsince it decided to retain the archway for atrial period has been inept. Though memberswill be free to vote as they please on MrBrand's motion, many people have been leftwith the impression that parliament is beingasked to rubber-stamp a decision made regardlessof public opinion."The debate was unusually Uvely—as onejournalist put it "the government backbenchers.. . had a carnival" .^^ The printed record(Hansard) gives the impression that memberswere affected by the unusually large attendancein the public galleries of the house. Someof the younger backbenchers on the governmentside made it clear from the start thatthey intended to vote against the motion. They,"complimented the Premier on his handling ofthe issue—then proceeded to shoot him downin flames".^^ The Leader of the Opposition(The Hon. A. R. G. Hawke) pursued thetactic of speaking late in the debate when theattitude of most of the government's memberswas clear. He then claimed that, "the Governmenthad brought this motion to Parliamentbecause the public opinion test poll did notproduce the result which the Premier and hiscolleagues thought it would produce, andhoped it would produce". At this point theultimate decision was obvious. And then thePremier, in his summing-up before the vote,admitted "... I have made tactical mistakesabout this matter; but only in the interest ofthe people".^^ In the voting, ten governmentparty backbenchers voted against the motion,and four Labor members joined the rump ofthe government parties in its support. Themotion was thereby defeated 26 to 18—andthe Barracks Arch was saved.The strangest feature of the vote was itssequel. Not only did the Hon. John Hearman,the Speaker of the House, restrain the applausefrom the public galleries with, "It is an offenceagainst the Criminal Code even to demonstrate,and it carries a three year penalty",^^he also wrote an admonitory letter to the tenLiberal Party members who opposed theirleader's motion. He expressed regret that, althoughthe Premier admitted a mistake intactics, "half his party deserted him". Andasserted that ". . . it is one of the responsibilitiesof those most closely associated with Premiersto make the job worthwhile and possiblefor one man to bear". He then warned therecipients that "... should the Premier ultimatelytake 'this step' [i.e. resignation] thecontribution and responsibility of the membersconcerned would be heavy".^''It was not surprising that the Speaker'sletter provoked a joint reply with ten signatures:"It would be in the best interests of the parliamentof Western Australia and the partywe represent, if you will withdraw the lettercontaining these incorrect and damaging imputations;especially as the words werepenned by the holder of the position of custodianof the rights and privileges of allmembers of Parliament. The Speaker's primaryduty is to be impartial at all times."The press was informed of the letter and,ironically, told that the matter was a personalaffair between the Speaker and the ten membersand that the incident was "closed".^^In spite of, or perhaps because of, party discord,the Barracks Arch still stands. The Premierclaimed that the Government has spent"some thousands of dollars" in underpinningit to prevent it from falling into the gapingchasm that will later become the switch road,and also to strengthen it against the vibrationsof the heavy traffic that streams west out ofSt. George's Terrace.^^ And the Premier hasgiven his assurances that "... the archway willstand there and stand there until the Freewayis completed; and when we are finalising andclearing up and developing the area, the archwaywill be treated in a suitable manner . . ."*"The moral of the story:In reflecting on the lessons to be drawn fromthe issue of the Barracks Archway it is a simplematter to reach the Premier's conclusion thathe made "tactical errors", and leave it at that.This, of course, is to deny credit to the tacticsof the defenders. For if politics is seen as amatter of tactics, or, as some will have it, theart of the possible, then an objective assessmentof a political struggle needs to take accountof all the forces involved. Yet judgementsabout the Barracks dispute are usuallyof two kinds, either upon the aesthetics of thebuilding, or about the role of the politicians.Little consideration has been given to the individuals,or to the groups from the community,who stopped the government in itstracks. It is their role and its importance forthe whole question of town planning, whichemerges as the important lesson of the Barracksstory.Few people would quibble with the judgementthat the Barracks Archway has a lowpriority as a subject affecting the economicaffairs of Western Australia. And it wouldseem that the government ranked it accord-WESTERLY, No. 1 of 1967 59