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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 2 Hansard (26 February) . . Page.. 427 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

This Bill does not totally abolish the concept of B1 in the Territory Plan. Rather, it amends the plan's map so that the current application of this zone status to large parts of North Canberra is removed. The B1 zone will still apply to other places indicated on the plan map. Small areas in many suburbs, usually close to shops, currently have B1 classification, and there is a good planning case for B1 to be used in this way. If this zoning is limited to particular blocks, with the designation made on good planning grounds and after public consultation, it can be quite acceptable. Perhaps small parts of North Canberra might be acceptably designated as B1 in the future. In fact, we have areas that are currently so constructed. I referred to one of them earlier, in Torrens Street in Braddon. We simply could not change the zone because there is a B1 effect already there. Similarly, with the Bega and Allawah flats, Argyle Square and other areas in North Canberra. That is why it is that I have used this particular method. There may well be some debate as to what should or should not be included in this schedule at any given time, but the current blanket status is totally unacceptable.

Mr Speaker, in commenting on this Bill, the Parliamentary Counsel, Mr David Hunt, has expressed the opinion that this Bill may be beyond the power of the Assembly. I share that information with members so that they understand that there will be some debate on that issue. Indeed, Mr Hunt writes that he has formed this opinion based on the perception that the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act and the Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land Management) Act reserve control of the Territory Plan for the Executive branch of government. I reject this point of view, Mr Speaker, although I certainly thank Mr Hunt for providing it for me. Mr Hunt, in writing to me, stated:

Time constraints preclude me from providing you with a more expansive written account of the reasoning that underpins the view that I have expressed. However, I will be happy to elaborate orally should you so desire.

Of course, I will seek further elaboration. Mr Speaker, I have a great deal of time and respect for Mr Hunt, as, indeed, I know all members do; nevertheless, a legal opinion is exactly that, a legal opinion. On my own reading of relevant Acts, and having taken advice as well, it is quite plain to me that the Assembly has power to make enactments which control the plan and which control the Executive. In addition, I expect all members to agree that it is the Assembly which has ultimate authority over all legislative documents, including the Territory Plan. The Executive Government should never be immune from that authority. That is about accountability. So, Mr Speaker, I will continue to put that argument to members while this Bill remains on the floor of the Assembly.

This legislation brings about a change which the people of North Canberra are clamouring for. They see the current status of their locality in the plan as an appalling bureaucratic intrusion into their local affairs. It is a situation which serves the commercially-minded few to the severe cost of the great majority of residents. Mr Speaker, how members of the Assembly vote on this Bill will reveal to the people of Canberra which politicians have the interests of the community at heart and which do not. I look to members to ignore the

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