Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories, I present the committee’s report entitled Review of the Griffin Legacy amendments.

Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.

by leave—On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories, I have the pleasure of presenting our report entitled, Review of the Griffin Legacy amendments. The Griffin Legacy amendments are some of the most significant changes proposed for the future urban planning of Canberra. They seek to restate some of the key planning principles Griffin proposed and articulate specific strategic plans for the central national area. The amendments examined by the committee include amendment 56, the Griffin Legacy—principles and policies; amendment 59, City Hill precinct; amendment 60, Constitution Avenue; and amendment 61, West Basin.

The committee supports the broad aims of the Griffin Legacy project. The aim of advancing Griffin’s plan to guide the future urban planning of Canberra through the 21st century is enviable. The committee, however, believes that the Griffin Legacy amendments can be improved. Through the roundtable public hearing, evidence was provided which questioned the adequacy of parts of these amendments. These criticisms are not easily dismissed.

In relation to amendment 56, concerns were raised about excessive building height, traffic and transport implications, loss of vistas of national significance and loss of green space. In addition, there were concerns about the scale of the proposed developments and the lack of a rigorous planning rationale. At the same time, the committee’s examination revealed that there were concerns about the adequacy of the NCA’s consultation process. The examination of amendment 59 revealed concerns about the level of detail, issues about public funding, specific concerns about serious disruptions to traffic and excess building heights and loss of vistas.

Amendment 60 notes that Constitution Avenue will become an elegant and vibrant mixed use grand boulevard linking London Circuit to Russell. The amendment was supported by key stakeholders including, for example, the Returned and Services League of Australia, the Canberra Institute of Technology and St John’s Church. Each of these groups has made valid cases for supporting the amendment. The committee, however, has noted some of the concerns about the amendment which also cannot be easily dismissed—in particular, the scale of the proposal and the possible negative impact on the vista from Parliament House towards Constitution Avenue, which is perhaps one of the most significant urban vistas in the nation.

Amendment 61, West Basin, is notable for its size and scope. It is proposed that part of the lake be reclaimed using infill taken from the proposed Parkes Way and Kings Avenue tunnel. The amendment provides for a land bridge over a section of Parkes Way for streets to extend to the lake. A waterfront promenade will be created, and stepped back from that will be a series of buildings. Building height on the waterfront promenade will be limited to eight metres, a maximum of two storeys. The parapet height of buildings fronting the promenade will be a maximum of 16 metres, and taller building elements a maximum of 25 metres and not exceeding 30 per cent of the site area may be considered. Taller buildings may be considered on sites north of Parkes Way.

In considering this matter further, the committee examined the NCA’s 2004 report, The Griffin Legacy, Canberrathe nation’s capital in the 21st century. In that report, the NCA set out a plan for West Basin which is moderate in tone, less dominated by development and much more inclusive through the use of extensive green areas. Evidence to the committee suggested that the scale of development for West Basin should configure more closely to the NCA’s 2004 proposal. As a result of the committee’s findings, the committee has recommended that amendments 56, 59, 60 and 61 be disallowed so that the NCA has the opportunity to further refine the amendments, taking into account issues raised in the committee’s report. This finetuning is necessary and in the interests of Canberra and the nation.

I would like to express, on behalf of the committee, our gratitude to all those who participated in the inquiry and to the staff of the secretariat. I thank my committee colleagues for their cooperation and substantial contribution throughout the course of the inquiry. On behalf of the committee, I commend the report to the House.

Annette Ellis (Canberra, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is my pleasure to stand and discuss this report with the House today. In doing so I note the comments already made by the member for Page. Yes, it is true that the committee’s recommendation was for disallowance, but it was basically recommending that the Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads move that disallowance. I just want to make a couple of things clear on the record here in relation to this report. The committee generally supports the broad aims of the Griffin Legacy project, a product of both the ACT Planning and Land Authority and the National Capital Authority. However, to us on the committee, process is a very important part of the work of this parliament and of our committee. The committee feels very strongly that process may have not been adhered to in quite the way that we would have imagined.

In November last year, the minister for territories wrote to the committee, as he would normally do, advising that the consultation process had been finalised and seeking advice from the committee on whether it would wish to inquire into the draft amendments that we are speaking about. That happens each time there are significant—in fact, any—draft amendments that come within the ambit of the committee. The committee wrote back on 30 November, four days later, advising that it did in fact wish to conduct an inquiry into the draft amendments. However, on 6 December, the amendments were tabled in both houses of parliament, subject to a disallowance period which the NCA advised would expire on 29 March—that is, this week.

The committee feel very strongly that yet again we are seeing an example where the work of the committee is being circumvented. As the committee report says:

The decision by the Minister, on the advice of the NCA, to table the amendments prior to the committee commencing its own inquiry is a break with convention.

The minister has in the past waited for advice from the committee, on most occasions, as to whether it wishes to undertake an inquiry into draft amendments, but in this case that was not able to be done. I feel very strongly that these conventions are there; they are important and, for the committee to do its work properly, they should be followed.

Due to the process, the committee have now managed, despite that outcome, to hold a roundtable conference here in one day, on 23 February, in our attempt to get across the issues. These amendments—amendments 56, 59, 60 and 61—are probably the most enormous amendments in terms of impact on Canberra that we have seen for decades and decades. They are very substantial. While we, as I said, agree in general with the thrust of these amendments, that does not mean that we should not have the ability to look more closely at what exactly the impacts may be and whether or not those amendments can be improved in some way; hence, our reasons for wishing to have had that inquiry. Instead, we had the roundtable—a very successful roundtable where a number of people from the community, both individually and from appropriate institutions and businesses, came together and discussed very broadly the impacts of these amendments.

There is one particular aspect I would like to draw attention to in the brief time I have—that is, a comment regarding the dual planning process we have here in Canberra, where we have the National Capital Authority on the one hand and the ACT planning authority on the other. We had the example brought to the committee’s attention in that roundtable of an independent businessman, a small business man, who has purchased a business on the edge of Lake Burley Griffin—in fact, it is Mr Spokes Bike Hire, which many of us know about. He has paid money for that. He moved into that business only late last year, to now find that it is right in the middle of potentially huge planning changes to West Basin, under amendment 61. The issue became apparent in our roundtable that day: on the one hand, the NCA are drawing up proposals under amendment 61 which could have a massive impact on that businessman, but, on the other hand, he is sitting on a piece of land which is territory land, which is for all planning purposes governed by the ACT planning authority. This is an issue that I hope to bring further to the attention of the House when I have more time, because it is an important issue that needs to be discussed.

I want to thank all of those people who participated in the roundtable, and I also want to thank the committee secretariat. As I said, the roundtable was on 23 February, and here we are with a very well-written and researched report put forward by the committee. I want to thank the secretariat and my colleagues on the committee for the very quick but very proficient work that was done in attempting to draw some of the conclusions together in relation to four very large amendments affecting Canberra into the future. (Time expired)