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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 8 Hansard (26 June) . . Page.. 2149 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

Ms Tucker raises concerns about the effect of the B1 guidelines. I would suggest to her, with great respect, that it is better for her to initiate some process or support some process to change what is in those guidelines than to say simply that we abolish B1.

Ms Tucker: Local area plans. That is the idea.

MR HUMPHRIES: With respect, what Ms Tucker's motion says is:

That this Assembly calls on the Government to direct the ACT Planning Authority to:

(1) immediately abolish the B1 planning zone in inner North Canberra.

Ms Tucker: But I explained in my speech that it would move on from there.

MR HUMPHRIES: That is not what the motion says. The motion says you want to abolish the B1 zone and then put in place some different process for considering that area of Canberra. Surely it is inherent in that process that you retain the B1 zone and you look, if you want to, at changing the way in which policies and guidelines for that area of Canberra are being carried through. That ought to be the incumbent responsibility on someone who is serious about dealing with these issues.

The Territory Plan was formulated after an extensive period of public consultation which I think has been unparalleled in the history of self-government. It was undoubtedly the single most consulted about document that has been produced and passed by this Assembly. It took two years of intensive work. Admittedly, Mr Speaker, many people had elements of dissatisfaction about parts of the plan. I have no doubt about that. I would not pretend for an instant that, even when the plan was passed, everyone was universally happy about it. Clearly they were not. But the plan itself was an attempt to reconcile and conciliate the needs of different sectors of the community. In aiming for that it was broadly accepted by the community as a device to achieve those broad aims. Although there were elements of dissatisfaction, although there were elements where people felt that other things could have been done, for the most part the Territory Plan represented a very significant achievement in community acceptance of the way in which we structured our Territory. I am also advised that there were relatively few comments during that consultation on the undesirability of having the B1 zone.

Again, the focus of what Ms Tucker ought to be saying and perhaps is saying, in a way, is that B1 itself is not the problem; it is how we are dealing with B1 guidelines, and we ought to have a different process for working through B1 guidelines. Mr Speaker, in saying that I think Ms Tucker is on slightly stronger ground, but in doing so she fails to acknowledge the work that has already gone on in respect of the B1 zone and the rest of North Canberra through the local area planning advisory committee process. The local area planning advisory committees have been involved in the last nine months or so in the process of working through awareness guidelines.

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