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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 10 Hansard (28 August) . . Page.. 2969 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

There may be a fundamental disagreement about whether or not the Commonwealth should be allowed to sell land which was reserved for its purposes but is no longer needed. However, at the very least, we should ensure that the Commonwealth's activities do not conflict with the territory's activities, and that it is done in a coordinated manner. That is not what we have at the moment. However, it is not for lack of appreciation by some quarters in the Commonwealth. The Department of Transport and Regional Services, which has responsibility for territories, and the minister responsible for territories, Mr Tuckey, have acknowledged the need for Commonwealth land releases in the territory to occur in a coordinated way-in a way that fits within the territory's own planning and land management process and its land release program.

At a meeting I had with Mr Tuckey some months ago, the one point on which we were able to agree was that the Commonwealth should coordinate its land releases to fit in with the land releases of the territory. He has provided support to the territory government on that point. Unfortunately, other parts of the Commonwealth administration-in particular, the Department of Finance-take a contrary view. I think that, as a territory, we need a greater level of ownership from all agencies in the Commonwealth towards the appropriate management of land release and strategic planning in the territory.

It is a great irony, Mr Speaker, that it is the territory government which has taken the lead on strategic planning for the future of our city, when the role of the Commonwealth agency-the National Capital Authority-should be more significant than it has been to date. I will continue to encourage and work with the National Capital Authority to try to get them to play a stronger role in the strategic planning processes undertaken to date. As Ms Tucker says, the Commonwealth has not always been the best advocate on the national capital functions in the territory.

Changes were made to the National Capital Authority some time ago, in that it was no longer seen as a planning agency but became a national capital authority rather than a national capital planning authority. Whilst its title may be symbolic, those changes nevertheless underpin a shift in the Commonwealth's thinking on its role in Canberra, and its responsibility in furthering the good planning administration and development of the national capital-as well as the national capital being a place in which over 300,000 citizens live.

Mr Hargreaves has also raised the issue around the size of the Assembly. The Pettit Review of the Governance of the Australian Capital Territory made a recommendation that the Assembly should have the right to determine its size and its workings, rather than there being some reference back to the Commonwealth minister and the Commonwealth parliament.

Yes, it is true that we are a creature of the Commonwealth parliament. Yes, it is true that we are not sovereign in the same way that states are. Nevertheless, I fail to see why the Commonwealth parliament should have to give its approval to determine the size of this place.

Mr Speaker, this is not a matter in any way affecting the Commonwealth parliament, or the Commonwealth's interest. If the Commonwealth is unhappy with self-government, as Mr Humphries has said, it can seek to repeal the legislation and take self-government

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