Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

None . . Page.. 1113 ..

Clause 15 -

Mr Moore moved the following amendment ...

“(3) All variations to the Plan prepared by the Authority ... until that policy plan is replaced by a further comprehensive strategy for the long term development of land in the Territory.”.

That was put to the Assembly after a slight amendment. The ayes voting for it were Mr Collaery, Mr Jensen, Dr Kinloch, Mr Moore and Mr Stevenson. Who voted against it? Among the noes were Mr Berry, Mr Connolly, Mr Humphries, Mr Stefaniak and Mr Wood. Mr Kaine was not there. I well remember the debate. The amendment was lost.

Mr Humphries may well ask how my provision got into the legislation. Mr Humphries, I was part of dealing with that legislation. We revisited that clause at the end, as we are able to do under standing orders, and I once again moved an amendment to clause 15; but at that time Mr Kaine was back in the Assembly. I remember that as I made that speech - it was through the Chair, as my speeches always are - I explained carefully to Mr Kaine why it was important that my proposed words be put in. What I put up was that the following words be added:

All variations to the Plan prepared by the Authority shall be in accordance with the document known as 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 Kaine moved the following amendment:

Omit “be in accordance with”, substitute “have regard for any relevant provisions of”.

That done, the amendment then passed. That is actually how it got into the legislation. It was through persistence. To have you now come back to us with that as the prodigal returned is indeed a delight. I see Mr Kaine smiling. I am sure that he too is delighted that we now have you onside to develop the strategic plan for Canberra.

Mr Speaker, Mr Humphries then goes on to talk about the two planning authorities being drawn into one. This is something for which I commend him. If I remember correctly, the White Committee back in about 1982-83, looking at the possibility of self-government, recommended then that there should be just one planning authority. It seems to me that a number of our problems associated with planning in the ACT arise because we have two separate planning authorities that overlap. I think we have reached a point of maturity where it is now time to say that a single planning authority with nominees from both the Federal Government and the ACT, preferably agreed by both, can ensure that what occurs in Canberra is in the best interests of Canberra and the best interests of the people of Australia. I think that is possible, Mr Speaker, and I think it would be a much more efficient way for us to operate.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .