Page 4740 - Week 15 - Thursday, 21 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
There is no doubt that the draft Territory Plan does have some strategic elements. There is no question about that; it does have strategic elements. But it is not driven by strategy. It has some strategic elements, but the zoning sections of the draft Territory Plan are largely devoid of those strategies. I say that because they fail to control how much development goes where, and when. That is what planning is about. That is what a strategy provides. A long-term strategy should provide a long-term vision of how much development will occur in any given place at any given time. Once we have a long-term strategy, we can plan within that framework. That is what is missing.
Mr Wood has been kind enough to indicate to me that some of his advice indicates that so much of the Metropolitan Policy Plan has been taken over by the National Capital Plan that this amendment will achieve nothing. If that really is the case, then it also will do no damage. If, as Mr Wood is suggesting, so much of the Metropolitan Policy Plan has been taken over by the draft Territory Plan and the National Capital Plan combined, then what is lost? I am arguing that that simply is not the case. There is enough still remaining in the Metropolitan Policy Plan that will govern the long-term strategy in Canberra.
Mr Collaery pointed out that, if someone was litigious in this matter and was prepared to take to court a variation to current policies, that person would rely heavily on the Metropolitan Policy Plan. Mr Collaery is quite right. Yesterday I lodged with the Supreme Court a notice of motion to object to a variation under section 11A of the City Area Leases Act, and in my objection I will rely heavily on the Metropolitan Policy Plan, which is part of the plan that, for the time being, governs the construction and development of Canberra.
I think that, if Mr Wood could understand that there is no risk in terms of damage, as far as the long term goes, in fact we would be right. With reference to the amendment - which, of course, is what I am actually speaking to, Mr Speaker - the point that Mr Wood raised about the National Capital Plan is valid. I pointed out before that I felt that it had already been covered. But the National Capital Plan, of course, is a general overall strategy for the areas that are covered in terms of national capital interests and national capital thinking.
But we need to go further than that. We need more than that, and it is appropriate for Mr Wood to see his way clear to support this very sensible amendment and to realise that his own documents tell him that there is no long-term strategy. I have not suggested for a minute that the Metropolitan Policy Plan and the National Capital Plan together will provide the best long-term strategy. I believe that it is quite correct that that strategy needs to be reviewed. By passing this amendment, we will ensure that that strategy will be reviewed rapidly, and we will
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .