- Tourism and the community
- This chapter explores collaborative approaches between the Commonwealth and ACT Governments to promote the National Capital and present a shared story of Australia. It discusses the heritage value of Canberra as a draw card to the city, and highlights tourism opportunities beyond the National Institutions.
Heritage value
6.2Several of the National Institutions are included in the Commonwealth and National Heritage Lists. There are 84 places in the ACT on the Commonwealth Heritage List, of which the following are considered National Institutions:
- the Australian National Botanic Garden (ANBG);
- the Australian War Memorial (AWM);
- the High Court of Australia;
- the National Gallery Precinct;
- the National Library of Australia and surrounds;
- the National Archives of Australia;
- the National Gallery of Australia and the Sculpture Garden National Gallery;
- the Royal Australian Mint; and
- the National Film and Sound Archive (NFSA—situated in the former Institute of Anatomy).
- Additionally, five places in the ACT are on the National Heritage List. The following four of these are considered cultural institutions:
- the Australian Academy of Science Building;
- the Australian War Memorial and the Memorial Parade;
- the High Court of Australia and National Gallery Precinct; and
- Old Parliament House and Curtilage.
- Mr James Barker, Branch Head, World and National Heritage, Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW) noted that places on the Commonwealth or National Heritage lists are registered for their architectural, historical, and spatial significance. Mr Barker added that these sites have an ongoing story that speaks to the dynamism of the places. The places are ‘recognised for what has occurred and what is occurring and unfolding as part of our national story now’.
- The Lake Burley Griffin Guardians recommended that Lake Burley Griffin and the lakeshore landscape be listed on the National Heritage List. Vice Convenor of the Lake Burley Griffin Guardians, Mr Richard Morrison, advised the Committee that the purpose of the National Heritage List is to identify places which are seen to be of outstanding national significance. Protections applied through the National Heritage List would ensure that development decisions consider the value of the place. This could be the first step to the World Heritage Listing of Canberra.
- As an example, Mr Morrison explained that:
[W]ith the Ngurra proposal, for instance, if that were in a five-storey building in the location proposed—and I don't think it will be, but if it were—that might be seen to affect a view line to Parliament House across the lake from north to south, and that view line is seen to be quite important because it's part of Walter Burley Griffin's design for Canberra. That would be something that would be taken into account, in terms of an assessment of a proposal.
6.7The DCCEEW reiterated the importance of the National Capital’s vistas when considering the Capital’s heritage. It added that the views, vistas, and settings within the National Capital are recognised on the Commonwealth and National Heritage Lists. These listings ‘reflect the uniqueness of Walter Burley Griffin’s planned design and layout of the Capital, including important lines of symmetry’.
6.8When considering tourism value, Mr Morrison asserted that the inclusion of Lake Burley Griffin, the lakeshore landscape, and Canberra onto the National Heritage List could be used by tourist agencies. This is similarly done for the Great Barrier Reef and Uluru. Promotional information could state that places on the National Heritage List are of national significance.
6.9Mr Barker advised that DCCEEW has worked to articulate the value and heritage significance of sites listed on the National and Commonwealth Heritage Lists. This approach gets to the issue of ‘articulation for the community of why the place is significant, what the history is of the place, who it's significant to and the context around that listing as well to give people a proper and rich appreciation of what essentially makes the place significant’.
6.10However, Mr Barker acknowledged that the National and Commonwealth Heritage Lists do not have the same kind of branding that is seen with the World Heritage List. Mr Barker added that the World Heritage List has a strong brand.
6.11The Lake Burley Griffin Guardians suggested that collectively the Commonwealth, the ACT Government and other non-government bodies should promote heritage listed sites in the Capital to domestic and international tourists. Domestic and international advertising campaigns, resources for owners of heritage sites, consistent identification, and digital and other promotion methods were raised as ways to recognise the importance of the National Capital.
6.12The National Capital Authority (NCA), the ACT Government and various institutions provide information relating to the heritage value of the national capital and the ACT more broadly. DCCEEW provides information on each site placed on the heritage lists, which is a site-by-site level of information. Mr Barker further noted that there is an opportunity for a more singular, overarching approach to connect places of historical value.
6.13The Reid Residents’ Association recommended that the 2009 nomination of Canberra, the Planned National Capital for the National Heritage List be supported. Itnoted several architectural points of interest in Canberra that range from 1920s suburbs based on the Garden City principle, post-war international style, as well as Bauhaus influenced buildings. The Association also highlighted the architectural statements of Old Parliament House being built under the hill that could be used ‘to showcase Canberra to Australia and the world as Australia’s unique approach to planning our National Capital.’
6.14The Lake Burley Griffin Guardians also supported the 2009 nomination of Canberra, the Planned National Capital for the National Heritage List. In addition, it suggested that if Canberra were accepted onto the World Heritage List, the recognition could be advertised nationally and internationally as a drawcard for visitors. The Commonwealth and ACT Government could also foster this listing.
6.15The Walter Burley Griffin Society argued that the National Heritage Listing of Canberra, the Planned National Capital would be an incentive, which would enhance Canberra’s potential and prospects both domestically and internationally. The Society emphasised the importance of ensuring the character and aesthetic of Canberra was retained and not ‘eroded away by poor decision making’.
6.16DCCEEW advised the Committee that in June 2009 the Australian Heritage Council (AHC) received two public nominations for the city of Canberra and surrounding areas to be included on Australia’s National Heritage List. The AHC concluded that the proposal met the requisite threshold for listing; however, on 8 April 2022 the then Minister for the Environment declined the heritage listing. The listing was not recommended by the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment (DAWE) as successive ACT Governments failed to declare a position on the listing and raised concerns about the ‘perceived regulatory burden that listing may entail and how this could delay projects or limit growth and development within Canberra’. DAWE concluded that it would not be possible to list Canberra the Planned National Capital without the explicit support of the ACT Government.
Safeguarding the Griffin vision
6.17In 1908, the Yass-Canberra district was selected as the site of the future capital of Australia. The Government declared that the new capital would be ‘the finest capital city in the world’ and announced an international competition for the design of the city. More than 130 architects and town planners from Australia, North America, and Europe submitted plans. In May 1912, the Commonwealth Government announced that Walter Burley Griffin, a young American architect and landscape architect, had prepared the winning design.
6.18Walter Burley Griffin’s plan for Canberra was based on the natural topography of the site. He proposed a city located centrally between three hills (Black Mountain, Mount Ainslie, and Mugga Mugga) and north and south of an ornamental lake made up of a series of linked basins. The city structure would be based on two main axes: a land and water axis. Within would lie a triangular government group, including the current site of Old Parliament House.
6.19The NCA’s 2004 book The Griffin Legacy identifies several propositions to promote the Griffin legacy. Proposition eight calls for the establishment of a ‘Griffin Institute as a permanent archive/exhibit/museum to broaden the understanding of the national and international significance of the work of the Griffins’.
6.20The Walter Burley Griffin Society supports the establishment of a Griffin Institute and has been actively seeking support for a virtual Griffin Institute. It has approached both the University of New South Wales and the NAA to facilitate the Griffin Institute. Neither group has taken on the project.
6.21Mr Peter Graves, Chair of the Canberra Chapter of the Walter Burley Griffin Society, added that the Griffin Institute is about:
…getting that awareness and understanding of and pride in how Canberra started, because the Griffins were more than Canberra. They were active in Melbourne. They designed Leeton and Griffith.
6.22The Griffin Institute would be a single point of entry for understanding why the Griffin’s remain relevant and what points need to be defended. It would provide an opportunity for architecture students to research the plans of the National Capital and compare it with other national capitals.
6.23When considering potential tourism related to Walter Burley Griffin and the planned capital, Mr Graves acknowledged the potential of a Griffin trail, which the Walter Burley Griffin Society is preparing. The trail would relate to Water Burley Griffin and Marion Mahony Griffin and include handouts to find General Bridges’ grave, as well as the incinerator in the Westbourne Woods. Mr Graves added that as Chair of the Canberra Chapter, he has been approached by individuals and groups seeking to understand more about the Griffin’s works.
6.24In addition to potential strategies to promote the Griffin legacy, evidence received highlighted the unique aspect of Canberra being a planned capital and how this reflects part of Australia’s national story.
6.25The importance of the design, including the placement of the National Institutions, the Parliament House vista, the Australian War Memorial and ANZAC Parade, as well as Lake Burley Griffin were all identified as ‘instrumental in understanding the vision and continued importance of elements of the original plan for Canberra’.
6.26The NCA noted that the Griffin plan was visionary for its time, which looked at integrating symbolic ideas of nationhood with the natural environment. Lake Burley Griffin was highlighted as one of the centrepieces of the Griffin plan but also one of the centrepieces of the city.
6.27Chair of the Inner South Canberra Community Council (ISCCC), Ms Marea Fatseas, reiterated the importance of maintaining the legacy of Walter Burley Griffin and Marion Mahony Griffin:
What sets Canberra apart is that we are a city in a landscape. That makes us almost unique in the world as a national capital and is what defines Canberra. Looking at the planning system, in which we are very engaged, elements of the inner parts of Canberra are well defined because of the legacy of Walter Burley Griffin and Marion Mahony [Griffin]. We would like to see the iconic elements of Canberra maintained under the new planning system, while recognising that we need a solution for the growing population of Canberra.
6.28Maintaining the vision of Walter Burley and Marion Mahony Griffin was also raised by Professor Beatrice Bodart-Bailey. Professor Bodart-Bailey highlighted that the entrance to Canberra, via Northbourne Avenue, no longer provided the visitor with a taste of the Canberra’s design. This arterial road has been reshaped by ‘permitting developers to build what yields the greatest profit’.
6.29Professor Bodart-Bailey argued that the legacy of Canberra’s planned city must be celebrated with environmental satellite towns and regional centres, rather than the present 70 per cent infill policy.
6.30Similarly, the Reid Residents’ Association argued that:
It is important that changes to 'activate' Canberra don't take away its particular charm, especially in areas that reflect the Griffin's vision adapted as it was to an Australian way of life at the time. This is part of the story telling of Canberra, as much as the Melbourne Sydney rivalry that is reflected in the first two major buildings in the city centre.
Capital and city planning
6.31Throughout the inquiry the Committee was told of the difficulties inherent in having both the Commonwealth and ACT Governments responsible for elements of the Territory’s planning and land management. Collaboration between the Commonwealth Government and the ACT Government was raised when considering the impacts of planning decisions.
6.32The Yarralumla Residents Association noted that the move to self-government of the ACT created conflict between the two visions of Canberra. The first vision was identified as the need to ensure the Capital remained iconic, symbolic, and a source of pride, as well as the Seat of Government and home to the National Institutions. The second vision was the operational and economic management of approximately 400,000 people.
6.33Greater Canberra highlighted the two visions of Canberra. Canberra as the National Capital—being facilitating by the Commonwealth, funded by the Commonwealth, and planned and regulated by the Commonwealth. Canberra as the place to live—being the responsibility of residents and their elected representatives of the ACT Legislative Assembly, funded through local taxes, and as planned and regulated through ACT planning policy and local services.
6.34However, Greater Canberra highlighted that the departments, agencies, and National Institutions in the National Capital are operated and maintained by residents of Canberra. Conversely, the population and its community, organisations, businesses, education institutions, and amenities have been built to serve the needs of the Commonwealth. In Greater Canberra’s opinion ‘Canberra cannot succeed as a national capital without succeeding as a city, and conversely it cannot succeed as a city without succeeding as a national capital’.
6.35The ACT Government informed the Committee that it works closely with the NCA. Both have the same interest, in making Canberra the best place in Australia. The NCA also recognised that there is a healthy interaction between the NCA and the ACT Government. Regular engagement at the officer level was noted, as well as regular meetings and open dialogue relating to the city and current projects.
6.36However, examples were provided to the Committee that identified complexities for both the NCA and the ACT Government when planning for the Capital and the city.
6.37The ACT Government noted that the light rail planning in the National Triangle has been subject to a number of complex planning approvals. In addition to the various ACT Government planning approvals, under the ACT Planning and Development Act 2007, the project is subject to various Commonwealth approvals under three separate pieces of legislation. The ACT Government welcomes ‘the opportunity to collaborate with the Australian Government to develop a streamlined approval process, which can appropriately respond to design development as the project progresses and any changes made in response to technical changes’.
6.38When considering the light rail, the NCA was positive about the decision processes, stating that:
I think light rail [stage] 2A is a good example. It's a long time ago that it was agreed, and it was really just a process of working quite collaboratively with the Territory government officials as they developed the scheme further. We had regular meetings; they were effectively pre-application meetings. There were no real issues of disagreement. Within the Territory Government itself, there would've been some debate about things like tree species and dealing with heritage management, and some materiality questions, but the process was quite collegiate—I think that would be the best description. As we've heard, when they were ready to submit all the documents that were required for assessment, it was, for such a complex project, a relatively quick turnaround.
6.39Ms Leesa Croke, Deputy Director-General, Policy and Cabinet, ACT Government, added that a shared and agreed understanding between the Commonwealth and the Territory about what the national capital is to look like and what investments should be made is needed. Ms Croke acknowledged that planning processes need to go through due processes and scrutiny. However, having that shared understanding ‘might mean that things could happen slightly faster’.
6.40Concern was raised with the ACT Government’s limited consultation with the Commonwealth Government relating to planning proposals in the ACT. The ISCCC identified the proposed ACT Government planning framework and questioned whether it was consistent with the object of the National Capital Plan, which is ‘to ensure that Canberra and the Territory are planned and developed in accordance with their national significance’.
6.41Ms Marea Fatseas raised concern with the limited compliance role of the NCA. Ms Fatseas noted that the NCA oversees proposals for new developments but has limited oversight once the proposal is agreed to. Greater cooperation between the two planning authorities was advocated. Ms Fatseas recommended increased resources to the NCA and observed that Canberra is the only planned capital city that is no longer controlled by a national government.
NCA Board representation
6.42Currently the NCA Board consists of a Chair and four members all appointed by the Governor-General acting on the advice of the Federal Executive Council. Pursuant to a voluntary arrangement between the Commonwealth and the ACT Government, one board member has been appointed on the recommendation of the ACT Government.
6.43When considering ACT representation on the NCA Board Mr Andrew Smith, Chief Planner of the NCA, advised the Committee that:
On the issue with the interaction at a board level, the ACT's Government is something that has been discussed at various times over the years of course. The NCA is not part of a board appointments, which are run by the department of infrastructure. We do know that for the most recent board appointment the chief executive of the ACT planning authority was a member of the selection panel. The person who was selected was someone that the senior representative of the ACT government thought was appropriate and the senior representatives of the department of infrastructure and, ultimately, the government felt was appropriate. Certainly, we reach out and have very regular interactions with very senior levels of the ACT government, but at the governance level that has for a long time been an active engagement with the territory government. The precise details of that vary over time.
6.44The ISCCC supported the merit-based approach to the appointment of members of the NCA Board. It understood that the ACT Government has been involved in the selection of one member and regarded that as sufficient.
6.45Greater Canberra highlighted that several reports released between 2004 and 2011 made recommendations relating to representation on the NCA Board. It recommended the NCA Board be expanded to ‘seven members, consisting of four members appointed by the Governor-General on the advice of the Commonwealth Minister and three members appointed directly by the ACT Executive’.
6.46Greater Canberra argued that the ACT representation on the NCA Board will ensure that the ACT Government’s interests are represented. However, the ACT Government will not control the majority, which will respect the national character of the NCA.
6.47Mr Damien Haas, Deputy Chair, Public Transport Association of Canberra (PTCBR), was also supportive of ACT Government representation on the NCA Board. Friction between the ACT Government and the NCA was raised because of the light rail approval process. To mitigate this, Mr Haas recommended that the ACT Government select two people for the NCA Board. Additionally, Mr Haas suggested that funding be provided for a position in the NCA to consult with the ACT Government while overseeing the implementation of the light rail through the National Triangle.
6.48As a comparison, the Committee was informed of the Washinton DC National Capital Planning Commission’s representation. This comprises 12 commissioners, which include eight commissioners representing federal interest and four commissioners representing the District of Columbia’s interests.
Combined tourism
6.49Continued collaboration between the Commonwealth Government and the ACT Government was noted as fundamental to raising the profile of the National Capital. The ACT Government suggested that benefits would arise if the two entities ‘realise a joint vision on the management and potential of the National Triangle and other land over which the NCA has purview’.
6.50The 2014 City Plan was highlighted as a joint initiative between the ACT Government and the Commonwealth Government which used the Griffin legacy to ‘provide an underlying blueprint and soul of the city’. The City Plan was updated in 2023 and continues to reinforce the ‘importance of the city centre as a nationally significant place for all Australians’.
6.51Two major ACT Government annual events use locations on national land—Floriade and the Enlighten Festival. Floriade has been staged annually in Commonwealth Park since 1988. In 2022, 427,768 visitors attended Floriade with approximately 46per cent of visitors coming from interstate or overseas. Floriade generated $38.9million in visitor expenditure in 2022 and, combined with local expenditure, generated $51.9million in economic impact for the ACT.
6.52In 2022, the Enlighten Festival had 338,474 visitors, while also generating 32,593 overnight visitor stays and $5.43 million in direct spending from interstate visitors. Combined with the local spend, the 2022 Enlighten Festival generated $20.8 million in economic impact.
6.53An additional combined tourism approach is demonstrated by the ACT’s visitor centre co‑location with the NCA’s National Capital Exhibition. The NCA noted that the two being co‑located has resulted in a natural synergy. The visitor centre provides information about what to do in Canberra while the National Capital Exhibition tells visitors about the history and story of Canberra.
6.54The ACT Government reiterated the positive impact of co-locating the visitor centre with the National Capital Exhibition. Advantages of the location included providing a fantastic introduction to the Capital, as well as encouraging visitors to interact more directly with facilities near Regatta Point.
6.55When considering the budget allocated to tourism, Visit Canberra’s budget in 2022–23 was between $12 and $13 million, which included operations staff and the operation of the visitor centre. Commonwealth contributions occurred around ACT Government programs which provided opportunities for national institutions to collaborate and co‑invest in the program. The ACT Government wholly funded its own destination marketing to promote Canberra as a place to visit.
6.56Commenting on funding for Canberra, Dr Dianna Wright, Yarralumla Residents Association, noted that:
Three things need to be done in Canberra: maintain the city for its residents, provide major infrastructure for both residents and visitors, and maintain the significance of the National Capital. The perception over the last decade-plus has been that there's not enough money for each of these things. There are various ways of solving it. We've seen the Federal Government step up with funding National Institutions more comprehensively recently. Looking at the Grants Commission allocation of funds, particularly given that Canberra doesn't have other sources of income like mining, Canberra seems to be much lower and there doesn't seem to be any specific quantum that's allocated associated with maintaining the National Capital.
6.57Areas within Canberra were identified as locations that could contribute to the visitors experience of the National Capital. The views of the National Triangle from Black Mountain, Red Hill, and Mount Ainslie were promoted as drawcards for ‘tourism and a recreational destination for residents of Canberra’.
6.58Black Mountain Tower opened in 1977 with an observation deck, café, souvenir shop, and rotating restaurant. The restaurant closed in 2013. The café and observation deck closed in 2021. Red Hill Carousel was built in 1963 and provided a café and souvenir shop, together with a restaurant with 360-degree views. The restaurant and café closed in 2021. The Yarralumla Residents Association recommended that Black Mountain and Red Hill lookouts should have a café, souvenir shop, and restaurant facilities for tourists and residents.
Suburbs-based tourism
6.59There is both scope and opportunity for the ACT to promote a suburbs-based approach to tourism, moving to spotlight Canberra’s diverse neighbourhoods. MrPatrick McIntyre, CEO of the National Film and Sound Archive suggested:
[T]here should be some introduction to Canberra about the characteristics of different neighbourhoods so people get the idea that some neighbourhoods are sleepy and leafy, other neighbourhoods have really interesting secret wine bars and other neighbourhoods have the big monuments.
6.60A suburbs-based tourist approach could demonstrate the evolution of Canberra and the plurality of available experiences, diversifying Canberra’s reputation as Australia’s monumental capital city. This could lead to increased time spent in the Capital, stretching an overnight stay into a two- or three-night visit. Mr McIntyre described the changing nature of Canberra:
[T]he evolution of Canberra over the past 10 years is that the nightlife has been transformed. Civic has been transformed. There are urban enclaves like Braddon. The popular perception of Canberra is still that it's very monumental. There could be a lot more done on badging all the different kinds of experiences you can now have in the National Capital, which would help people stretch an overnight stay to a two- or three-night stay.
6.61Visit Canberra has demarcated Canberra’s precincts and suburbs in a way that highlights the diversity found in the nation’s capital. Visit Canberra has described the following precincts and suburbs:
- Inner North: The inner north is the ‘beating heart of Canberra, melding diverse sights, sounds, tastes, and experiences with a mix of historic and modern buildings’.
- Inner South: The inner south is ‘home to Australia’s best museums and galleries … and renowned for its great café culture, day spas, and lakeside activities’.
- North Canberra: North Canberra hosts idyllic countryside views of the mountains, one of Canberra’s three wine regions in the hills of Hall and the ACT’s sporting precinct including GIO Stadium and the Australian Institute of Sport.
- South Canberra: South Canberra is the ‘gateway to natural wonderlands including Namadgi National Park and Pine Island’, and is also known as the home to embassies and cultural attractions such as the Royal Australian Mint.
- Surrounded by nature, Canberra is also cultivating a reputation as Australia’s ‘Bush Capital’ with 'gorges, forests and snow-capped mountains only 45-minutes’ drive from the city’; and the Australian Botanic Gardens, National Arboretum and Lake Burley Griffin situated in the National Capital. The city is also home to award winning baristas, and breweries, bolstering its gastronomic status.
Eco tourism
6.63Eco-tourism was highlighted as an increasingly important aspect of Canberra tourism, particularly the green environment and temperature of the Capital.
6.64Friends of Grasslands suggested that the investment in natural landscape within the National Capital needs to be addressed. The NCA’s budget was identified as a contributing factor that has resulted in limited investment in national lands. In particular, the budget was considered as not adequately covering basic maintenance needs, as well as not providing for the restoration of degraded areas. The natural landscape of the Capital was noted as a potential major attraction and part of the national story.
6.65In addition to Commonwealth investment in the natural landscape, collaboration with the ACT Government was also raised. The established collaboration could be used to:
[C]onserve and promote a national botanical precinct that would bring together at least six major assets, ranging from the Australian National Botanical Gardens, the Commonwealth Lindsay Pryor National Arboretum, the intervening Yarramundi Reach grasslands and the National Arboretum Canberra into a dynamic, diverse attraction. Similarly, we point to other opportunities to conserve this core area of central Canberra.
6.66The ANBG noted that it has 60 hectares of bushland on the south side of Black Mountain Drive. In 2016, a walking trail was developed that links the Black Mountain Nature Reserve, which flows onto the National Arboretum and the corresponding precinct. This leads to integration with the other natural areas around Black Mountain and Lake Burley Griffin.
6.67A coordinated approach of the different natural assets would lead to more investment in areas like upgrading interlinking walking tracks, linking the cycling tracks with Lake Burley Griffin and Mount Stromlo. Such investment would appeal to visitors interested in active recreation, as well as those looking for something new and to engage with nature.
6.68Representatives of the ANBG advocated for better integration and collaboration with the city and the Territory.
Committee comment
6.69Canberra is rich in Australian history. Central to this is the planning and development of the National Capital. Walter Burley and Marion Mahony Griffin’s vision for a planned capital city is evident in the architectural, historical, and spatial significance of Canberra, which is communicated through various vistas, landscapes, roads, and institutions around the Capital. The Griffin Vision is integrated throughout the National Triangle and into the broader Territory.
6.70This story of the planned capital city provides an opportunity to showcase the history of the National Capital and attract visitors to it. The Committee supports initiatives designed to promote a heritage trail of Canberra and preserve the national story.
6.71The Committee is acutely aware that the National Capital is more than its institutions and buildings. Its landscape and regional setting provide for its natural assets to be highlighted and explored, particularly through the network of walking tracks and bike paths that connect Canberra. Similarly, Canberra’s suburban areas—which extend beyond the National Triangle and city centre—offer insights beyond traditional story telling. Its national parks, sporting precincts, local markets, and regional wineries provide for a more local experience of the National Capital and its lifestyle.
6.72The Committee sees value in specifically communicating the significance of institutions and places as part of Australia’s story, especially those listed on the Commonwealth and National Heritage Lists. It also sees value in investing in and promoting Canberra’s natural landscape, as well as those suburban areas that provide an experience outside the most popular attractions.
6.73The Committee supports calls from local residents who suggested facilities be introduced or upgraded to improve visitor experience and comfort at Red Hill, Mount Ainslie, and Black Mountain. It encourages further consultation with the ACT Government regarding potential upgrades to these areas.
6.74The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government, in consultation with the ACT Government and non-government bodies, promote Commonwealth and National Heritage Listed sites within the National Capital.
6.75The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government work with the ACT Government to improve visitor experience at local ACT lookouts, including Mount Ainslie, Red Hill, and Black Mountain, and that a feasibility study be undertaken to examine food and comfort options for each site.
Ms Alicia Payne MP
Chair1 May 2024