Page 160 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 14 February 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
requirements for these areas. The ITPA and, later, the ACT Planning Authority could then have a duty to observe the requirements outlined, remembering, Mr Speaker, that the Territory plan must not be inconsistent with the National Capital Plan. (Extension of time granted) Special requirements, rather than designation, should occur when the Commonwealth has an interest in leased land while a special requirement would be for national land that is not designated to be subject to the Territory plan.
The future of planning in the ACT will be best served if the two planning authorities, now that we have them, both national and Territory, see their role as one of partnership and not a situation where one sets out to act as a significant constraint on the powers of the other. My discussions, Mr Speaker, with both current planners in that area suggest that there is quite a considerable degree of consultation between the two groups. We are keen to ensure that the close working relationship between these two authorities is maintained. I am optimistic that with goodwill on both sides there is scope for making improvements to the document and of influencing the Commonwealth Government's attitude in this matter.
I am pleased to note the comments made on both sides of the Legislative Assembly, as they demonstrate a concern across the political spectrum and show that on this issue there is certainly some coming together of ideas. Mr Whalan's matter of public importance is indeed important. I hope that there will be extensive negotiations on the issue and that changes will be made to the draft. It is certainly the Government's intention to follow this matter through to the highest political levels, as my colleague the Chief Minister has already indicated.
MR BERRY (4.27): The Assembly's response to the draft National Capital Plan is very important. Since the National Capital Plan will affect all citizens of the ACT every day of their lives, they expect their local representatives to have an input into the plan. The citizens of the ACT, who are concerned about planning, would be anxious, to say the least, about what the future holds for them. I say that, Mr Speaker, because of issues which have become evident today and which exist on the government benches. The Residents Rally party, in its submission to the National Capital Planning Authority, strongly supports the broad thrust of the National Capital Plan and it goes on to say:
... and in particular supports the extent of the designated areas.
I know that Mr Collaery, in responding to that statement publicly, suggested that the President of the party was reacting with some zeal. It interests me that now, since Mr Collaery is thrown in with the Alliance, his former travellers are zealots. It is suggested that there is a significant watering down of the Residents Rally policy to accommodate the Alliance.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .