Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am sorry; the Griffin Legacy—was first discussed back in 2002, I think, not long after I ceased to be the minister for the territories, including the National Capital Authority. There has been an enormous amount of consultation since that time, leading up to these amendments.

The amendments were released for consultation last year. Extensive briefings and information sessions were undertaken and special presentation tools were provided. These included advertisements in the Canberra Times on 5 and 19 August last year, advertisements in the government Gazette and invitations to the public briefing in the Canberra Times and in other newspapers. There was an information forum on 17 August 2006 for the industry, the professions and community groups. The model of the Griffin Legacy was unveiled on 17 August 2006. There was a DVD presentation, and public information sessions were held on 18, 19 and 20 August and on 12, 13 and 14 September where the Griffin Legacy model is located. On 19 September a Youth InterACT forum was briefed, and there were various other community briefings.

The Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories received three briefings on the Griffin Legacy, so the suggestion that the committee was not kept fully informed is simply incorrect. The first was on 23 June 2004, the second was on 13 September 2006 and the third was on 11 October 2006, the latter being particularly on the draft amendments. The Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads approved the amendments on 27 November and gave the joint standing committee the opportunity to conduct a formal public inquiry. Instead, on 30 November the committee decided that it would conduct a roundtable forum to examine the four amendments. The amendments were then approved by the minister on 30 November 2006 and tabled in both houses on 6 December 2006. The disallowance period passed on 22 March 2007 in the House. It was due to end on 29 March 2007 in the Senate, but I understand that at five minutes to midnight Senator Brown lodged his disallowance motion.

It is probably important to understand the recommendations of the committee. The first recommendation said:

The committee recommends that the Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads in the future provides the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories with the option of inquiring into every Draft Amendment to the National Capital Plan.

That is rather a curious recommendation, because it has always been the practice before approving an amendment for ministers to write to the committee asking whether or not they do wish to inquire. In fact, this happened in this particular instance. The second recommendation said:

The committee recommends that the National Capital Authority explore options for ensuring that submissions to all the Authority’s consultation processes are made publicly available subject to full approval by the submitter and compliance with the relevant privacy principles ...

The National Capital Authority did advise the committee at the roundtable that it had now implemented procedures to enable the names of submitters to be publicly available with their submissions, subject to their agreement, of course. Prior to implementing this new procedure, the National Capital Authority was prevented under the Privacy Act 1988 from making the submitter’s name publicly available. I am advised that the NCA has now also asked those who made submissions on the draft amendments if they are happy to have their names added onto the website for the record.

The third recommendation did, as Senator Brown said, recommend ‘that the National Capital Authority has the opportunity to further refine the Amendments taking into account issues raised in the committee’s report’.

There has been an enormous lead-up period to this, as I mentioned, and Senator Brown did not move this disallowance motion until five minutes to midnight. Neither his office nor any member of his party sought a briefing from the minister’s office or from the NCA prior to the tabling of his motion. I am advised that his office was briefed last week by the NCA—but at the request of the NCA, not at the request of Senator Brown.

The Griffin Legacy project commenced in 2002 and has been the subject of extensive and comprehensive consultation. As I mentioned previously, this included government, professional, peak industry and stakeholder forums; public meetings; briefings; open days; the use of the internet; and a model developed especially to illustrate the possible outcomes. In addition, at the minister’s invitation the National Capital Authority briefed the joint standing committee on three occasions. Before the minister approved the amendments, the joint standing committee was given the opportunity to conduct a formal public inquiry, but instead the committee chose a roundtable discussion approach.

I could go through the actual consequences of the disallowance if it were successful, but that does not seem to be Senator Brown’s objection. He is talking more about the process than what the amendments will allow. Under the plan, as it currently stands, 1.5 billion square metres of development is allowed. If these amendments go through—that is, if this disallowance motion is not successful—the development potential will only increase to 1.9 billion square metres, which is about a 26 per cent increase. This increase is generally in the West Basin and City Hill precincts, and both areas were always development sites.

I could go through this plan and these amendments in more detail but, as I said, Senator Brown does not seem to be arguing the merits of the amendments but rather the process, so perhaps I will not take the time of the Senate. Suffice it to say, though, that it fits in with the ACT government’s plans for this area. It is always dangerous to try to precis what will happen, but my understanding is that it will allow for greater development in the inner-city areas of Canberra. The point has often been made that, whilst this is a magnificent city—and I am very proud of what our government has done for the national capital over the years and of the work that I did for the three years that I was the minister in this particular area—there is a feeling that there is a bit of a dead heart in Canberra.