Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That:

(a)

Amendment 56 (The Griffin Legacy – Principles and Policies);

(b)

Amendment 59 (City Hill Precinct);

(c)

Amendment 60 (Constitution Avenue); and

(d)

Amendment 61 (West Basin)       of the National Capital Plan, made under section 19 of the Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land Management) Act 1988, be disallowed.

The Greens have moved this disallowance motion today because of huge community concerns. We want to stand up for the role of the Senate in a true participatory democracy. Quite a number of people in the Canberra community have voiced concerns to both Kerrie Tucker, the ACT Greens Senate candidate, and me—and they have, on investigation, quite a bit to be concerned about. In this case, the Senate is being asked to consider these amendments after the rushed inquiry; the amendments were tabled in the parliament before the committee had an opportunity to conduct that inquiry; and the time for scrutiny of these amendments has been restricted by the 15-day disallowance period, which is up today.

Let me go back that truncated inquiry of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories. Its report commented:

Due process dictates that the committee should have been given sufficient time to scrutinise the Griffin Legacy Amendments. At the conclusion of this process the NCA could have utilised the findings of the committee and considered whether to incorporate them into the amendments before they were tabled in the Parliament. In rejecting this procedure, the Minister has ignored the role of a committee of the Parliament and the contribution that it is entitled to make.

Those are serious concerns. The parliamentary committees, such as that committee, are particularly important—as you know, Madam Acting Deputy President Moore—to ensure that government proposals are rigorously tested, the community has an opportunity to bring their views and expertise to the table and the executive can be held accountable to some degree at least. In this case, the joint standing committee has worked hard under unreasonable time constraints. It has come out with constructive recommendations but then been ignored by the minister. Here we have an example of this Howard government showing contempt to the parliament as it has repeatedly done since gaining control of this Senate.

The disallowance motion I move here today is as much to support democracy as it is about planning itself. The Griffin Legacy amendments are no small matter. They are of huge significance to the future development of Canberra both as the national capital and as a city in which 320,000 people live and work. The implications extend well beyond the central national capital area. As Enrico Taglietti, the winner of the 2007 Royal Australian Institute of Architects Gold Medal, wrote in the Canberra Times:

One may give the benefit of the doubt to the NCA’s good intentions but that doubt can not be given to the unmitigated arrogance of the minister in refusing the Joint Parliamentary Committee’s recommendation to disallow the amendments.

I understand that the National Capital Authority claims there have been five years of consultation on this issue. But others who have been involved in the process take a different view, including the joint committee, which recommended there be more time given. There is a strong view amongst the community that, while the Griffin Legacy project was an excellent foundation, the amendments do not reflect adequately the underlying understanding of that work, saying:

The Griffin Legacy directs future public and private investment in core areas of the capital where opportunities are created for vibrant, mixed use precincts alongside cultural institutions, government buildings and major national attractions. It restores the intended urbanity and vitality of Canberra as a cosmopolitan lakeside city.

There has been considerable discussion as to whether the Griffin Legacy document is really ‘a blueprint for future development’. We should look at these amendments very carefully and not be rushed into a decision. The joint committee pointed out:

... the NCA has never explained the urgency in tabling these amendments and apparently seeking to rush these amendments through the Parliament. These amendments will guide urban planning in the Central National Area during the next 25 to 30 years.

I am concerned about the substantive criticisms of these amendments. They are of interest to the present generation and future generations of all Australians and, in particular, those living in this great city.

The bottom line is that these amendments are very significant in terms of future development in Canberra and a significant number of people lack confidence in the current planning process. It is obvious that there are passionate supporters of the national capital who hold quite different views on these amendments and they surely are worthy of respect. It is an example of a healthy democracy to see lively debate and we need to encourage such involvement in that democracy if we are to be able to work together as communities to deal with the significant challenges, including planning the future, which are before us.

There appears to be agreement that these amendments are no small matter—that much we can agree on: they are of huge significance to the future development of Canberra both as the national capital and as a city and a place in which people work and live. However, what experts or community members do not agree on is whether these amendments will ensure the protection of this beautiful city in the landscape or meet critical environmental, social and heritage standards. That is a serious matter of disagreement when there is so much at stake. For this reason, the Greens support the call for more time to be given to strengthening and clarifying these amendments to meet community concerns not only about the amendments themselves but also about the undermining of the democratic and planning processes involved.

If the minister had given the committee adequate time for its inquiry, for public consultation and for the consideration of these amendments, that would be one thing. If he had not so arrogantly tabled them in the parliament, we would not be here today. There would not be so much acrimony about this process had he thought about it, responded more democratically and given more consideration to what is a very important public debate instead of overriding it. But this government apparently no longer thinks that the public, the committee system or the parliament for that matter should be substantially contributing to its decision making and its policy. We disagree. The democratic principle at stake here is so important.

Let me sum this up by saying that, had the minister allowed the committee of this parliament—which overviews the important core developments of this city, the planning process and the public import—proper time, we would not be here today. I know Labor may well not support this disallowance motion, but this debate is as much about the failure of the democratic process under the Howard government as it is about the planning process itself. When you fail in that, you leave people angry and frustrated with the democratic process. This is not a police state; this is a beautiful, wonderful democracy. The fact that the government has control of the Senate should not take away its obligation to respect that democracy. I urge all senators to support this motion.