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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 6 Hansard (18 June) . . Page.. 1772 ..

MS McRAE (continuing):

The issue arose from three specific events that happened in the ACT - namely, the erection of the futsal slab, the application for the wedding chapel on the side of the lake and the use of the lake for the rally. In each case it was clear that there were protocols by which the Federal Government did consult the ACT Government; but there were no protocols as to what would then happen, other than that the ACT Government would give an opinion on it. Also very clear in the course of the three debates - and I am sure it happens time and again on other issues - was the fact that there are many people in Canberra who feel that they ought to be able to have a say in whether the ACT Government should say yes or no to the proposals that are before them in relation to designated land. I mean specifically designated land where primarily the Commonwealth has the development rights of the land but has a process of checking with the ACT Government on their response to the proposal that is before them.

What I am calling for is a set of protocols very similar to those already used under the Land Act for different applications. They determine the process by which a range of groups - incorporated organisations or perhaps individuals if it is anywhere near an individual's residence - are notified of a proposal and their opinions are taken into account. If the Government so chooses, we can issue a more public and general notice as well, so that the general public is informed. In many of the sites that we are talking about there are very much publicly shared spaces about which many people have very strong opinions. They have historical links. They have a social centre in people's lives. To suddenly find a new building or a new proposal - even if it is within the possible lease uses of the land, even if it is within the character of what is possible in the area, which I think each of the three proposals that I am talking about was, and even if it is a project that really should not be stopped - can cause public concern. With the three that I mention, we saw a very high level of public concern that they somehow sprang up and that people did not have an opportunity to comment.

What I would like the Government to do, and hopefully I have the support of the Assembly, is to provide us with a set of draft protocols - I am calling for them in the September sittings - so that we can look at some proposals about who could be notified, how the notification process could be dealt with, how comments could be dealt with and how the whole business could be expedited, so that the projects can continue but with the input and perhaps the confidence of the Canberra people rather than simply the tick of the ACT Government. I think it is a fairly straightforward motion. I commend it to the Assembly and look forward to seeing these draft protocols in September.

MR HUMPHRIES (Attorney-General and Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning) (4.15): Mr Speaker, I rise to support the motion that Ms McRae has moved and indicate that I am more than happy to take up the issue that she has put before the Assembly. In fact, I think that she has summarised very well the nature of a problem which most of us are very familiar with, a problem the heart of which lies in the fact that Canberra is governed by two separate planning systems. We are very far from having an ideal co-existence of those two systems in this city and we need to refine the process very considerably if we are to have a continuation of a dual system of planning in this city at all. As members know, my view - and, in fact, the view of the chamber, because we passed a motion on this a couple of years ago - is that we ought not to have that dual system; we ought to integrate the two planning systems.

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