Page 4736 - Week 15 - Thursday, 21 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
remain consistent with it. But we should not use that on its own because, of course, the strategic value of the Metropolitan Policy Plan still exists and is not inconsistent with the strategies of the National Capital Plan.
With that in mind, I urge members to ensure that we, as legislators, adopt this appropriate way of taking control of planning in the ACT until such a time as the long-term development of Canberra is undertaken by the Territory Planning Authority. I hope that members will support what is obviously a very sensible amendment to ensure that we are not giving carte blanche to people to go ahead with a short-term planning concept. Planning, by its nature, ought to be a long-term concept. It ought to be a concept that is based on a strategy.
I find it appalling that a strategy for planning is not set out first and foremost, with the techniques for handling those planning matters then being designed to fit in with the strategic plans. I think we must give credit to the Territory Planning Authority at least for making it clear to us - on page 73 of the draft Territory Plan Planning Report - that that is its position; that it does not have a long-term strategic plan on which to operate. We see that it is its intention to establish one, but until that happens we must remain with what we have.
There is no point in throwing out everything that we have and coming up with something that is based on short-term planning. We must ensure that this is consistent with what we are doing. If the amendment that I have moved to my earlier amendment is passed, the amendment will read:
All variations to the Plan prepared by the Authority shall be in accordance with the documents known as the National Capital Plan 1990 and 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.
MR WOOD (Minister for Education and the Arts and Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning) (9.31): Mr Speaker, I think there is a little more logic in what Mr Moore now proposes, but I remain unsure that there is all that much purpose to it. The fact is that the remnants of the Metropolitan Policy Plan, such as remain operative - those not taken over by the National Capital Plan - along with that latter document, pretty substantially cover planning matters for the period until the new plan comes into effect. So, I am not sure that there is any purpose in agreeing to this amendment.
MR COLLAERY (9.32): Mr Speaker, I thought Mr Moore made himself clear. He quoted from page 73 of the Planning Report of the draft Territory Plan. I hope Mr Wood has it before him.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .