Page 5005 - Week 17 - Tuesday, 11 December 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Territory Plan ought be some form of a coherent strategy. The Territory Plan that will exist for us, as it does at the moment - because we are going to be adopting NCDC policy plans - will be dominated by the 1984 Metropolitan Policy Plan. That was recognised as the dominant plan by Justice Kelly in the Concrete Constructions case. It seems to me that when one looks at that plan one realises that not only does it set out strategies, but it also sets out the consequences of what is likely to happen when its provisions, or its strategies, are not adhered to.
So, the decisions that are taken can be seen not only in terms of what they might achieve but also in terms of what their consequences might be. Again and again, when people have moved away from the strategies - the policies of the Metropolitan Policy Plan - we have seen the consequences that have borne out the warnings that are part of that particular plan. The question really is: will we have a coherent strategy in the Territory Plan, will the Territory Plan also provide that sort of detail, and will it do at least as well as the Metropolitan Policy Plan?
The Metropolitan Policy Plan was set out for the year 2000. If it is to be replaced, then it is appropriate that it be replaced with something better. If it is not going to be replaced with something better, then, by and large, it ought to be adopted. That is not to say that that plan is perfect. I am not suggesting that, or that things have not changed. Of course, they have. I think there are a number of lessons we can learn about the success of that plan and what is modelled on it. Mr Jensen interjected a short while back, "Yes, yes". I hope that it is something that turns out to be the case.
The other interesting feature of this Interim Planning Bill is, of course, that it will allow variations to the plan. Over the last year we have seen a series of variations that have been possible under Federal legislation. I think there are probably no more than about 20 of them, as my memory serves me. However, the variations that are going to be dealt with over the next little while are likely to include quite contentious issues. Mr Connolly mentioned a fear that Acton Peninsula was an example of something that could be used. As I recall, Mr Jensen interjected and said that that was not going to be the case. Of course, as we are aware, it certainly fits under the National Capital Plan.
However, there is the issue of the schools that will come up for variation. There is certainly the issue of Lake Ginninderra. I presume that this could well come up for a variation to allow a private hospital. One wonders what other variations are likely to come up. There are a series of concerns about this. Of all those concerns, the most significant is that there is no appeal, and no appeal mechanism, under this particular legislation.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .