Page 4542 - Week 15 - Tuesday, 14 December 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The other case where a proposal from the ACT Government has run into a problem with the Commonwealth is, as members know, the proposed Magistrates Court on City Hill. That is a slightly different case, in that a proposed amendment to the National Capital Plan, which would have permitted the Magistrates Court building and which was endorsed by both planning authorities, was not supported by the Commonwealth's Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital. Whilst those cases are a little different, the Magistrates Court case is another case of the Commonwealth overriding the Territory on a planning issue.
Madam Speaker, my reaction to the refusal on the hospice was to see it as a serious misunderstanding of the NCPA's role and of its position, and one that did intrude into the sovereign role of the Territory's Government. I therefore wrote to the Prime Minister recommending that there ought to be a formal agreement between our governments covering relations on planning matters. I envisage that such an agreement might give effect to various principles, and I would like to spell out those principles for members.
In short, what I have suggested is a memorandum of understanding which would give effect to the following principles: First, that communication between the two governments on significant matters of planning and development be undertaken at ministerial level. I think that is significant; the buck stops with the Ministers. Secondly, that the responsibility of the ACT Government for representing the ACT community in matters relating to the Territory's planning and development be fully recognised in Commonwealth processes and practices. Thirdly, that where planning and development issues are not capable of being resolved between respective planning authorities, or where significant matters are agreed between them, these matters be elevated to ministerial level for resolution or for endorsement, whichever the case may be. Also, that an announcement of matters of significance to both governments be the subject of prior consultation in order to enable their considered public presentation. Madam Speaker, negotiations on that memorandum of understanding are still under way, but they are at an advanced level and I will certainly keep the Assembly advised on progress. I think that if an appropriate understanding can be reached it will help to reduce the potential for conflict in future planning matters.
I hope that it is not too late to undo the situation that we find ourselves in with regard to the hospice on Acton Peninsula. I understand that the NCPA has now advised that if the ACT Government wishes to pursue the hospice project - and we do - this may be accommodated. The Government is pursuing the options, including a new building or a facility within an existing building. In this context I do note that the urban design forum conducted recently, which Ms Szuty alluded to, concluded that it would be possible to include a hospice in an existing building without compromising the overall development of the peninsula.
Madam Speaker, other speakers have touched on the future of the Museum of Australia and the question of whether it might appropriately be built on Acton Peninsula. Even the most casual observer, I believe, would regard Acton Peninsula as a site suitable for an organisation of national significance and I guess that the National Museum would fall into that category; but the thing that is holding up the National Museum is, of course, the Federal Government.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .