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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 14 Hansard (12 December) . . Page.. 4881 ..

MR MOORE (9.09): I am not being nostalgic or pining for the past. What I want is a strategy. It annoys me to tears that Mr Humphries can accept advice that the purpose of subsection 15(3) is served by the strategic elements of the Territory Plan. There are very minor strategic elements in the Territory Plan. Strategic land planning is about how much development, where and when. Those things are not achieved within the Territory Plan. It is a land use plan. I think it is a shonk to claim that it meets the purpose of subsection (3).

I do not pine for the 1984 Metropolitan Policy Plan. I do not have nostalgia. It is not my bible. What I pine for is a decent long-term strategy. That is why I began trying to get a strategy together within the Planning and Environment Committee. Members supported me, which I appreciate; but the Government said, "Do not worry. We will do the strategy. We will do a complete overall strategy with the Commonwealth". I found that a very exciting prospect. I was so disappointed when it was not achieved, but I do not want to reflect on a vote of the Assembly by saying more. I appreciate what Ms McRae is saying. I think we are on the same wavelength. I think it is fair to say that she does not like the way I have gone about it here, but it is something that we need to look at again once the strategy is developed. I wish Mr Humphries would just make some effort to understand what it is that people are trying to achieve here.

Amendment negatived.

MR MOORE (9.12): Mr Speaker, although my amendment to strengthen subsection 15(3) has been lost, there is no reason for us to totally eliminate the subsection. Let us at least leave in encouragement for people preparing variations to take into account the Metropolitan Policy Plan.

Mr Humphries: It is more than that.

MR MOORE: Mr Humphries says that it is more than that. He is a lawyer. He can attempt to interpret it. We have to do our best in reading English. Mr Humphries, as Attorney-General, should be making sure that legislation is prepared so that it is readable for ordinary people. What I am hoping will stay and what I am suggesting should stay is:

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.

I would have thought that any ordinary lawyer would have said that the relevant provisions of a comprehensive strategy were the strategy provisions of the Metropolitan Policy Plan. I think that is a reasonable interpretation. Therefore, until we have a strategic plan, it ought to remain in place. I understand that Mr Humphries prepared the legislation believing that he would have a strategic plan tabled. At the time he probably had not read the document that was tabled but thought he was going to have a strategy that he could rely on. That is not the case. Therefore, I think it is appropriate that subsection 15(3) remain.

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