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

None . . Page.. 1534 ..

No doubt, we will see its implementation. It would be so much more effective if such a strategic plan could take into account the national capital aspects of the Territory as well as the strategic aspects that are of concern to local members, because there is nobody who lives in this Territory who does not recognise the importance of the Federal Government and the Territory as the seat of the Federal Government.

Mr Speaker, in some ways, it is with some fondness that I look back to the days when you and I were in discussions with the NCDC - with members and the commissioner of the NCDC - about how we could improve Canberra and how we saw the role of community involvement. I think I would be right in saying that you and I are the only members of the current Assembly who were actually involved in those discussions at that time. There were many others who had maintained a watching brief and interest. I know that Trevor Kaine and others fit into that category. I believe that the first time I met you was at one of those forums.

There were problems with the NCDC. I do not think any of us would expect that, if we agreed to Mr Kaine's motion and had a single planning authority, it would provide a panacea. It would not. But it would provide the opportunity for something that is much more effective and much more efficient than what we have now. It would take a great deal of time and effort. All governments that I am aware of have always been looking for situations where there is a duplicity - let me say a doubling up, rather than a duplicity - a doubling up on functions because of the lack of efficiency.

Mr Humphries: That was a Freudian slip.

MR MOORE: Mr Humphries interjects, “A Freudian slip”. Considering my criticisms over the last four or five years, it may have come out that way, although it was certainly not my intention.

What we should have is a planning authority that has on it not only members nominated by this parliament but also members nominated by the Federal Parliament. Such a body could then take whole issues, integrate them and get an overview of what should be happening in terms of planning in the Territory; rather than have the notion that the NCPA was set up as an umbrella over what the Territory should be doing. I find that umbrella concept - and that was how it was described in the days when it was being set up - to be entirely inappropriate. These issues were the issues that I was concerned about when I led a public campaign to retain the NCDC, even though we were aware of many of its difficulties. Mr Speaker, those are the discussions that you and I have been through.

I believe that a single planning authority is a much more effective way of dealing with the issues. It would also allow us to be separate from the Planning Authority - just one step removed; more than we are now - in terms of how the Planning Authority is perceived. Members of the public, I think, see the Assembly almost as a virtual planning authority. I think we would be much more effective if members of the public saw the Planning Authority fulfilling its role, with the Assembly keeping an overview of what was going on. The role of the Planning and Environment Committee would be that overview role, rather than having us deal with specific individual issues. An example would be dual occupancy. All of us, at some time or another, have had people from both sides of a development come to us and try to lobby us.

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