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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 14 Hansard (12 December) . . Page.. 4880 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

Therefore, it seems appropriate not just to retain subsection (3) but, more importantly, to strengthen it. My amendment strengthens it by omitting all the words from and including "All" to and including "(1984)" and substituting "The Authority shall not prepare a variation to the Plan inconsistent with the Metropolitan Policy Plan (1984)". This is only about variations to the Territory Plan from now on.

MS McRAE (9.05): Initially, we were quite attracted to this, because we are quite firm supporters of the Metropolitan Policy Plan and believe the argument that it has been waiting for the strategic plan to replace it. Subsection 15(3) of the Act states:

All variations to the Plan prepared by the Authority shall have regard to any relevant provisions of 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.

This could be interpreted as waiting for the strategic plan that was rejected the other day; but, on advice, we are told that, in fact, the comprehensive elements of the Territory Plan now cover this area. It has been subsumed by quite detailed and comprehensive work on the Territory Plan. Therefore, the amendment would take us back to something that we do not need anymore and would create unnecessary difficulties.

Whilst I want to flag that we are in sympathy with what Mr Moore is attempting to do, have a fair understanding of what he is attempting to do and have some agreement with the principles of the Metropolitan Policy Plan of 1984, we think that the Metropolitan Policy Plan has been subsumed by the current provisions of the Territory Plan and that the subsequent strategic plan will fit in in a different way, yet to be explained to me, once it comes into place. Given that it is not here, that it is not completed and that it is not agreed to, I do not think it is time yet to worry about how that is going to impact on this clause. I simply say that we will oppose Mr Moore's amendment but we look sympathetically at the ethos of what Mr Moore is trying to achieve, and at the appropriate time, probably when we do get a strategic plan that is more acceptable, we will have a closer look at how it marries with the current quite comprehensive provisions of the Territory Plan.

MR HUMPHRIES (Attorney-General and Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning) (9.07): I think Ms McRae has summed up the reason not to accept Mr Moore's amendment. Let me make the point, though, that, even were we persuaded that there is some need to jettison the Territory Plan's provisions which are supposed to have superseded the Metropolitan Policy Plan, I would have very grave doubts, not having read the Metropolitan Policy Plan recently, that a 12-year-old document prepared in the pre-self-government era of the ACT by another government altogether ought to be the touchstone for planning in this city. A great deal has changed in this city in the last 12 years. Mr Moore obviously pines for the days before Canberra changed, but the fact is that it has. We need to go beyond saying, "We will choose a document as our bible no matter how flawed it is. The Metropolitan Policy Plan has certain nostalgic attraction. We will go for the Metropolitan Policy Plan". That is obviously not going to work.

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