Page 5410 - Week 17 - Tuesday, 3 December 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The essential issue has been well traversed by Mr Moore and my colleague Mr Jensen, but a whole range of issues are being defined out of the bounds of public consultation and on the most skeletal criteria attached to the documents relating to draft variations. We see this, for example, in the documents that have been issued already for the suburb of Harrison. There are a number of sweet enjoinders about how planning should be carried out. There are the vaguest sketch plans for some of the layout.
Clearly, the National Capital Plan and the imperatives behind it, particularly the equitable provision concepts for shopping access, are not being complied with through this defined land concept. We believe that the Minister should provide advice to the house today or tomorrow as to whether he has been assured by his legal advisers that the defined land concept is in no way inconsistent with the National Capital Plan, the principles behind it and the legislation underpinning it.
MR WOOD (Minister for Education and the Arts and Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning) (4.14): Mr Speaker, Mr Collaery needs to be reminded that the National Capital Plan overrides the Territory Plan. There are not any inconsistencies; there cannot be any inconsistencies, because one is subservient to the other. But that apart, there is, I believe, as I have examined this, no inconsistency between the two.
The Rally makes quite a deal about defined land. At the introduction I said that nearly three years ago, when statements from this Assembly were being made by the then Government, there was comment about the way that broad-acre development would be considered. That has been refined through two extensive series of consultations. Arising out of those consultations, it was agreed that this should proceed. It was agreed, obviously, within the Alliance Government that this should proceed in this manner.
Mr Jensen: It does not mean to say that it is perfect.
MR WOOD: Mr Jensen, you had your opportunity some time ago in that Government to make an issue of it, and I understand that you did not. The concept is one which has no small number of safeguards. It is open to consultation. Mr Collaery says that it has been cut out of consultation. That is nonsense, because the broad proposals are available and open to consultation, and ultimately, of course, the plans need to be approved by the Planning Authority and by the Minister.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .