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

None . . Page.. 1530 ..

they have a direct and overriding interest in those areas. I think the time has come to re-evaluate whether we need two planning authorities and what those two planning authorities contribute to the wellbeing of this community and to the maintenance of the national interest in the Territory, and to determine whether or not there is a better option.

I know that there was a lot of dissatisfaction with the way that the NCDC operated, but the NCDC had a charter that went back to the 1950s. It operated on a set of planning principles and a philosophy that was long out of date by the time that it was finally done away with. But it also operated under a charter, granted to it by the Federal Parliament, that placed no constraints whatsoever on what the NCDC did. It was not responsible or responsive to any parliament, including the Federal Parliament that created it. One of its problems was that it had its own policies, its own course of action; and, even if the Commonwealth Parliament did not agree with what the NCDC did, it could do nothing about it.

We know from history - you will know, Mr Speaker; Mr Hird will know; and I know because we have been involved in local politics since 1974 - that there was enormous dissatisfaction with the way that the NCDC operated. We all hoped that that dissatisfaction would go away with the new arrangements set up in 1988. The fact of the matter is that that dissatisfaction has not dissipated.

Mr Wood: It never will.

MR KAINE: I am suggesting, Mr Wood, that since the new arrangements have not solved the problem we should have another look at it. That is exactly why I am proposing that the two governments have another look at it. I can conceive that, collectively, the two governments could set up a single planning authority that did not have the unlimited power of the NCDC; that was responsive to the interests of the Federal Parliament and of this Assembly; that had a single set of operating principles, philosophy and procedures that would satisfy the needs of both; and that, when planning decisions were taken, they reflected both the national interest and the local interest without the conflict, without the confrontation and without the complexity.

It should not matter who owns the land in the ACT; the planning principles of the place should be the same. It does not matter whether the Commonwealth wants to do something in the Parliamentary Triangle or whether we want to do something in Charnwood; there should be a set of planning principles that apply equally in terms of standards and the like. There will, of course, be some geographic areas to which special attention needs to be paid because of the national significance - the Parliamentary Triangle itself, of course. I accept that there are areas outside the Parliamentary Triangle which need to be preserved. They are already provided for in the plan, and nobody wants to intrude into those areas. In fact, the only one who seems to want to intrude into them is a telecommunications company. They seem to be prepared to intrude into any piece of land, no matter how classified and no matter how well protected - and I use the word advisedly - under the two territory plans. There are some people who seem to be able to get access. They should not be able to, for any reason.

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