Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Local Government) Share this | Hansard source

Labor will be opposing the Greens motion for disallowance. There are three key reasons for this. Firstly, there is in general an in-principle support for the Griffin Legacy amendments, although it is acknowledged that some finetuning would have been preferred. Secondly, there is a great deal of merit in ensuring a long-term vision to inform planning decisions for the next 50 years in the nation’s capital. Thirdly, we already have two planning authorities with much duplication in the ACT. We do not need a third in the Senate.

Our position is informed by the roundtable conducted by the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories in its review of the Griffin Legacy amendments. Those amendments, for the record, are 56, 59, 60 and 61, affecting City Hill, West Basin and Constitution Avenue, and also an amendment which covers in-principle matters across all of those areas. We are also informed by the committee’s interaction with the National Capital Authority over a number of years, not least, as you have heard, by the extensive consultation and presentations to the committee over quite a period of time.

The first point I would like to make is that the process of disallowance provides for no opportunity to amend the draft amendments to the National Capital Plan. We are not able to do the finetuning that many, including me, believe would have been beneficial to the content of the draft amendments. The disallowance motion is the only mechanism through which we can express a view in the Senate. The roundtable discussion of these Griffin Legacy amendments conducted by the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories understood that it could only be the minister who could give effect to such finetuning. Parliamentary procedures determine that only the minister for territories is able to introduce such draft amendments to the National Capital Plan and there is no opportunity for them to be amended once they are tabled. That is why the joint standing committee pursued the course of action that would encourage and facilitate the minister to make these changes. The committee understood that there needed to be a willingness and intent, if you like, by the minister to make the finetuning changes, as no-one else could. The committee hoped the minister would effectively withdraw the amendments and bring them back after finetuning them. But this recommendation could only be presented in the following way: it could only become a recommendation for the minister himself to move disallowance of the amendments because the procedures of the Senate did not allow even the minister to withdraw the amendments once they had been tabled.

But, as we know, the minister rejected that recommendation from the committee, and that determined that the government was not willing to make those finetuning changes. It is Labor’s view that, because we cannot do that finetuning in the Senate, and in the absence of the minister taking the initiative, we are dealing with a Greens’ disallowance motion that creates an all-or-nothing path for this group of amendments. In the face of an all-or-nothing proposition, Labor are going for all; we do not believe there is enough reason or argument for these amendments not to progress in these circumstances.

This is because, in all of the strident criticism that was expressed at the joint standing committee roundtable, outright rejection of these amendments was clearly a minority view. Most who criticised the draft amendments offered their qualified or in-principle support for a long-term vision to guide future developments. Subsequent tiers of planning, design and siting supervision will certainly address some of the concerns expressed—although, I have to say, only if there is the will to do so.

Labor believe these amendments are in the interests of long-term planning direction. They reduce the current unacceptably high levels of uncertainty among citizens, community, government and investors, and they will assist social and economic planning by the ACT government. They will also address many existing problems with the amenity of the central area. There has not been a great deal of investment, and the responsibility for that, I believe, lies with the Howard government.

The Greens are opting for the nothing option. I do not think this is surprising. They have not been intimately engaged with committee processes over many years and they have got hold of this issue recently and sought, I suspect, a political opportunity. I am not surprised by that at all. But there is another reason: the ACT has long suffered because of the competing tensions between territory level and national capital planning level authorities. We do have a dual planning system along main roads, so-called designated areas, aspects of Civic, pockets of national capital land and, obviously, the parliamentary triangle, and we are complete with anomalies such as the airport, which was under the sole jurisdiction of the NCA during recent periods of massive office development and now has no planning authority. Also, the pocket of residential land in Deakin/Forrest is under the sole jurisdiction of the NCA.

The last thing the ACT needs is a third planning authority in the form of the Senate. I am not a professional planner—there might be one or two of us here but the majority of us are not—and I would not presume to make subjective and detailed decisions regarding specific amendments. While I respect the opinion of many planners and architects who disagree with the NCA’s conclusions contained in these amendments, I do not think the Senate is the appropriate place to give life to their alternative suggestions or to veto generally supported propositions.

The third point I want to make is that we all have a responsibility to ensure the accountability of ministers and government bodies such as the National Capital Authority in fulfilling their statutory obligations—a point strongly made by Senator Bob Brown and observed succinctly by Senator Ian Macdonald. Both the Labor Party and the joint standing committee have been highly critical of the National Capital Authority in this regard for many years. Ultimately, the primary complaints in the matter of the Griffin Legacy amendments as expressed to the joint standing committee were: the concerns, issues and problems raised by the roundtable ought to have been canvassed, raised and fleshed out by the National Capital Authority before they got to the committee; and the minister having tabled the amendments in parliament. It is true to say that, had the roundtable occurred prior to the tabling, some of these issues could have been addressed.

As a member of the committee, I have to say that there was no sense of the magnitude of the concerns that existed prior to tabling. The roundtable was a decision by the committee as a way of checking the community sentiment because the committee understood the magnitude and importance of these Griffin Legacy amendments. But as a committee we were shocked at the vehemence and passion of many that participated in the roundtable. It is all good and well to say that in hindsight we would have preferred to have some way of at least advising the minister and the NCA of those concerns, but prior to the roundtable there was no real voice given to that, and that really falls at the feet of the National Capital Authority.

So while political responsibility for this lies at the feet of the minister, because he is the one who tables the draft amendments, I think there ought to be some serious questions asked from the government’s end about how the National Capital Authority really did go about their so-called thorough consultation with the sorts of people who attended the roundtable and who held very passionate views. Why were they not aired prior to this amendment getting to the parliament in the first place?

I also think it was disingenuous of Senator Macdonald to defend the NCA’s consultation process and the claimed privacy issues relating to submissions. After examination of the statistical overview of the NCA’s consultation plan the committee did find that many of the submissions they measured were not substantive. As a committee we felt that those privacy provisions were part of an exercise—whether genuine or not, and I am not judging that; they probably did run into a problem—which had the effect of clouding the clear picture of the views being elicited from the community. Had it been properly done, I believe we would have had a clearer and more balanced view of some of those primary concerns.

Finally, it is important to acknowledge the elected ACT government’s support for these amendments. In the furore about lack of meaningful consultation, the feedback I have had from my ACT Assembly colleagues is that they were thoroughly consulted and that the territory planning authority was closely involved in the development of these amendments. This is not the usual practice, unfortunately, but it adds considerable credibility to the draft amendments to the National Capital Plan before us.

In the spirit of constructive critique I would like to identify some of the universally expressed concerns, and the ones I would like to focus on are traffic and parking. I am concerned that the proposed densities of commercial and residential developments which, I hasten to say, will occur over the next 30 to 50 years—so we have some time to plan ahead—will inevitably result in increased traffic and parking. That is obvious. A thoughtful and realistic strategy must accompany any and all development approvals that may occur over the next 30 to 50 years under the auspices of this National Capital Plan.

I note the federal budget’s convenient and welcome announcement to spend money on road infrastructure at the Parkes Way and King’s Avenue intersection. It is helpful, and I urge both the ACT and the federal governments to keep their attention focused further east around the airport. We know all too well the traffic problems occurring out there. The traffic congestion at the airport is the fault of the National Capital Authority and is the product of what happens when the NCA has no responsibility for the impact on road infrastructure, traffic flows and associated costs with commercial developments approved at the airport. It is a symptom, I guess, of what happens when there is a disconnect in having two planning authorities.

These issues can equally be related to the increased traffic and parking problems in the Civic and Barton areas. The NCA has long argued for the implementation of pay parking in the Parliamentary Triangle. I think that most people in Canberra are familiar with the parking problems in Civic. The Commonwealth ought to make a contribution to resolving this problem given the Commonwealth’s decision regarding the location of Commonwealth departments and agencies.

In relation to parking ratios in commercial and residential buildings, I understand the Commonwealth and the NCA will adopt, or intend to adopt, the standards of the ACT. The standards or formulae need to address the contemporary needs of Canberra citizens and the workforce. There is a case for serious thought to be given to the current formula particularly if you extrapolate it to possible developments in the medium to long term. So I welcome the investment in Constitution Avenue announced by the government, qualified by my request that extra care and attention be paid to traffic flows and parking arrangements and, of course, useful and sustainable public transport to service these areas.

The care and diligence with which this issue is approached is a big test for the National Capital Authority. They have not shown themselves to be very responsive in the past, so I am not particularly confident. But I think there is a great deal of goodwill emanating from the Griffin Legacy amendment process. I have criticised the NCA vehemently in the past when they have denied the elected ACT government the right to implement policies they were elected on. The NCA is not democratically elected and I have long argued that they ought to respect the authority vested in the ACT government on planning issues when those issues are clearly about the local community as opposed to directly about the national capital and the Parliamentary Triangle.

The ACT has had self government for many years now, and I refer colleagues to the inquiry into the role of the National Capital Authority some years ago which highlighted the red tape contained in the two planning systems for much of Canberra. Labor presented a case for the removal of that duplication. The report acknowledged the maturity of the territory planning system and, importantly, our confidence that many of the precious and unique aspects of the national capital would and could be safely managed by the territory planning authority with due reference to the National Capital Plan.

In conclusion, I have a note on the budget announcements in relation to the Griffin Legacy amendments. Labor will be questioning the Howard government closely on the proposals for funding roads infrastructure and related proposals for land swaps. We are yet to see the detail but, as noted by Senator Macdonald, we do welcome these investments in ACT roads infrastructure. I am confident these amendments will serve us well. A vision and certainty is long overdue. The environment and the design of this city lie at the heart of its warm and wonderful character. We will have an ongoing role in being diligent to ensure that only the best outcomes emerge from this process. I was disappointed at the somewhat condescending and arrogant comment by Senator Macdonald in the government’s contribution to this debate. To even imply that Canberra has a dead heart is inaccurate, irresponsible and shows a lack of familiarity with this wonderful city. I also note that Senator Humphries appears to have been hiding under a rock throughout this whole public debate.