Page 1288 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 23 August 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
In criticising the Supreme Court process, I emphasise that the Government is not reflecting on members of the judiciary. We are, however, very concerned that the present system - I repeat "the system" - places responsibility for planning matters in the court. Planning matters should be the responsibility of the Government and the Assembly only. Compounding the problems of having an unnecessarily legalistic system for changing purpose clauses are the interim planning arrangements that apply until there is a national capital plan and a territory plan.
Under those interim arrangements, it would appear that the Government is bound by all NCDC planning policies gazetted by the Commonwealth before self-government. While in the main this creates no problems, in some instances such policies can be unduly restrictive. For example, in the Canberra Times case the court gave particular weight to the metropolitan policy plan of 1984, which in some respects sets limits to activity based on considerations some five years ago.
These former NCDC policies, I emphasise - and this is a very important point to be kept in mind, Mr Speaker and members of the Assembly - were not binding on the former NCDC itself. They were only used as guidelines against which individual proposals could be assessed. As I have already mentioned, the Supreme Court decision gave particular weight to the metropolitan policy plan of 1984. Taking that plan literally will mean that it is not only the Canberra Times development that is at stake. Effectively, if all the reasons of the court are binding, then a major part of the ACT development industry will be affected. For example, proposals for redeveloping a number of sites in Civic may not be able to proceed, including sites in Garema Place, Petrie Plaza and City Walk. Outside Civic as well, a wide range of redevelopments could be adversely affected, including those in Canberra Avenue, Northbourne Avenue, Dickson, Deakin, Lyneham and Fyshwick.
Paradoxically, the scope of the problem could even limit efforts by the Housing Trust to make better use of sites and provide inner city accommodation for disadvantaged persons. Equally paradoxically, the Canberra Times decision exhorts the Government to promote development outside Civic and yet restricts our ability to transfer employment to such centres as Dickson and Deakin. Dickson is another Residents Rally crusade.
In summary, the Canberra Times decision puts a severe check on all redevelopments, all office and commercial development of above 500 square metres that is outside Civic and the main town centres, and also limits the location of other activities to particular areas.
Not all construction activity in the ACT is restrained by the Canberra Times decision. Opportunities for activity will continue to be available, on a reduced scale, in
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .