Page 5724 - Week 17 - Thursday, 5 December 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
effect, the vestigial elements, of all of the variety of plans that affected the Territory at the time the National Capital Plan came in. It is there. So, how can the Minister assert - we are getting into straight factual contradictions here - that we do not know what applies?
I will give you an example - quite detailed statements. It states this in its introduction at page 23 of appendix C:
General Policies of the Plan define urban areas and other major land uses on a pattern very similar to the MPP. The MPP is therefore revoked in respect of its broad policies of land use. The MPP is also revoked to the extent that it makes policy statements about the Parliamentary Zone, Diplomatic Missions and the Airport, all of which are within Designated Areas. Finally, the MPP is superseded by the National Capital Plan with respect to policies relating to the National Capital Open Space System, and is further revoked to that extent.
Mr Speaker, there is explicit specificity in this statement and in this document. The situation can be discerned by the Minister's capable advisers, I would suggest. What Mr Moore seeks to do is to ensure that this Bill renders consistent the actions under it. What he is doing is reinforcing clause 8 of the Bill, which says:
The Territory, the Executive, a Minister or a Territory authority shall not do any act, or approve the doing of any act, that is inconsistent with the Plan.
I am sorry; I have read from the wrong clause. It is clause 7 of the Bill, and it says:
The object of the Plan shall be to ensure, in a manner not inconsistent with the National Capital Plan ...
So, there you complete the circuit - in a manner not inconsistent with the National Capital Plan, the specificity in the National Capital Plan. What we are concerned about as residents is the residual value of the MPP, which in itself, when completed in 1984, was a substantial document governing our lives. To the extent to which it is not superseded, it should be the benchmark.
MR KAINE (Leader of the Opposition) (6.01): Mr Speaker, I propose an amendment to Mr Moore's amendment that might resolve the issue. I move:
Lines 2 and 3, omit "be in accordance with", substitute "have regard for any relevant provisions of".
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .