Page 4731 - Week 15 - Thursday, 21 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
So, the situation is that, "pending proposed joint studies with the NCPA", the Territory Plan does not have such a strategy plan. I suggest that, if we incorporate this amendment in the legislation, we will see a great deal of activity on the part of the Planning Authority here to ensure that it does develop a long-term strategy plan, which other plans will have to be consistent with. Therefore, my amendment would provide that:
All variations to the Plan prepared by the Authority shall be in accordance with the document known as the Metropolitan Policy Plan (1984) until that policy plan is replaced by a further comprehensive strategy for the long term development of land in the Territory.
I do not know how any individual member of this Assembly could wear the responsibility of voting against this amendment in the face of the evidence that I have presented from the Government's own documents. Let me read it again:
... the Territory Plan cannot at this stage incorporate a comprehensive strategy for the ACT's longer-term development.
We are all aware of the tremendous amount of work that the Territory Planning Authority has done not only in preparing this plan but also in preparing this legislation, both of which we have before us today. This issue that I raise now, on its own, clearly justifies the fact that we were not prepared to debate this legislation until we had this plan. I must say that it makes me feel refreshed that people like me, and those in the Residents Rally, stood out and said that we would refuse to debate it. I see that Mr Jensen, displaying his normal rapid ability, has in front of him the very document that I refer to - the Metropolitan Policy Plan of 1984 - which has on its front the Y plan.
I would not claim that the Metropolitan Policy Plan is a perfect document, but it certainly does provide a long-term strategy. It sets out a strategic plan. It is consistent with what the planning Ministers from around Australia agreed to only a matter of two months ago. If we were to vote for this amendment, we would be consistent with what the planning Ministers from around Australia agreed to. This Territory Plan is not a strategic plan; yet Ministers around Australia have agreed that they will adopt strategic plans as part of the better cities project.
You cannot have short-term planning and strategic planning; the two are incongruous with one another. We need a strategic plan, and we have a strategic plan. Until that plan is replaced, we, as members, should take control and say, "Yes, we will have a strategic plan before this Territory Plan is adopted, and the two must be consistent". As long as this Territory Plan is consistent with the long-term plans, we have no problems. But, at the moment, I would argue that it is not consistent with them, and it
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .