Page 159 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 14 February 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Minister a petition with some 5,000 signatures seeking that this proposal be reviewed. This debate could be seen as a direct result of that decision which was taken by a Federal Labor government to which Mr Whalan was a paid adviser. I am sure he had some influence in that matter. However, I digress.
There are concerns with the plan, particularly in relation to the extent of detail, the extent of land designated as national capital land and the apparent conflict of interest between the national and Territory planning authorities. The draft plan goes well beyond the objective of the National Capital Plan as set down in the legislation, as my colleague the Chief Minister has already said, which defines the role of the plan as to "ensure that Canberra and the Territory are planned and developed in accordance with their national significance".
Planning at this level of detail and in areas remote from the Parliamentary Triangle is properly the right of the Territory Planning Authority and the Territory Government. We will be putting the case forcefully to the Federal Government that the draft National Capital Plan does not properly recognise the role of the Territory Planning Authority and is not compatible with the concept of self-government for the ACT as set out in the Commonwealth Government's documents and speeches in 1988 during the run-up to self-government, as my colleague the Chief Minister has already outlined. The treatment of Civic is a good example. It is not necessary in the National Capital Plan to identify the activities that should take place in specific precincts or buildings. Rather, the plan should set general aesthetic and functional standards and allow the Territory plan to determine the means of giving effect to such standards.
A major issue is the extent of the designated areas. Mr Speaker, areas where designation can be supported would be - for example, Lake Burley Griffin, the parliamentary zone, the area between the lake and Parkes Way, the land accommodating the Prime Minister's Lodge, new or old, the Barton Offices area and the Russell Offices, Government House, the sites for the National Museum of Australia and the future Prime Minister's Lodge, the Australian War Memorial and the National Botanic Gardens. In all of these areas the land is of obvious national capital significance. It is permanent in its use and requires special site planning. The other draft designated areas in the National Capital Planning Authority document are areas in which the Territory Planning Authority and the Territory Government have a significant interest. It is therefore essential that the planning instrument used permits each planning authority to express its requirements.
The most suitable instrument that the Act allows is that of special requirements, and we will be recommending that the National Capital Planning Authority manifest its national capital interest in determining detailed special
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .