Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I seek leave to speak to the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories' Report, An estate for the future.

Leave granted.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

I am delighted that this report has come before the Senate. An estate for the future is the report of the inquiry into the allocation of land to diplomatic missions here in the ACT. It was presented out of session on 28 March.

All of us who spend time here know this great city quite well and would be aware that there are a great many diplomatic missions here—in fact, over 80—reflecting the great cultural and economic links that we have with a great many different nations. Indeed, it is a key role of our capital to host the missions and to foster relationships with those nations. They are an important part of the fabric of our capital city. They are diverse and often attractive buildings that reflect both Canberra's history, in the history of those buildings and their architecture, the architectural traditions that have been employed through Canberra throughout its history—and it is interesting to note in that sense the anniversary that Canberra celebrates this year—and also the architectural traditions of many of the nations that occupy those buildings.

The management of this estate, if you like, brings with it some considerable challenges, unique ones, which are quite different to those of ordinary property development and property management. They include the need not only to manage the usual planning questions but to be sensitive to the national interests of the nations with a presence in our capital.

This inquiry came out of concern amongst residents of the Canberra community and within the committee over the way that land is allocated to diplomatic missions here in the ACT. People were concerned that the method currently used for allocating land to diplomatic missions lacked coherence and that, despite there being a long-term need for such land, there was no long-term strategy underpinning that land allocation. There was no obvious or meaningful coordination between the Commonwealth and ACT governments regarding that allocation of land for national use, despite the obvious need for such coordination, given the fundamental demand confronting the Commonwealth and the fundamental issue confronting the Commonwealth, which is a shortage of national land suitable to the diplomatic estate which the Commonwealth needs to take responsibility for managing.

These concerns were brought to prominence by a decision here in the ACT to reserve land adjacent to Stirling Ridge in Yarralumla for incorporation into the diplomatic estate. This decision was part of draft amendment 78 to the National Capital Plan, and it aroused some considerable community concern. Indeed, residents raised concerns about its impact on local open space and the local environment.

But, from the committee's point of view, what we found of key concern is that this allocation highlighted the essentially ad hoc process by which land is allocated as part of the diplomatic estate. The committee could not be assured—indeed, nor could residents. We could not be clear about whether this land had been chosen not because it is the most suitable but just because it appeared to be the most readily available. The committee was in agreement that this is not the best criterion for assessment.

In examining this issue, the committee undertook a couple of tasks. Firstly, we looked at the methodology for allocating land to diplomatic missions, looking at a number of factors influencing the decision making as it currently exists and the kinds of problems that arise. We explored the various alternatives for allocating land to diplomatic missions, including some examples from overseas, and were particularly impressed with the kind of planning that is employed in Washington DC. They have a much greater emphasis there on the integration of the diplomatic estate with the rest of the city. They also have far more substantial use of the free market in the allocation of land to diplomatic missions, whereas here in the ACT it is essentially a task that is undertaken by government, noting of course that government has an obligation under international treaties to facilitate access to diplomatic land. Government seems to have taken that very literally in therefore leaving the free market out of it, whereas I think our committee would contend that, yes, government has a special responsibility but that does not mean that the free market should not also have a role.

The result of our deliberations as a committee was that we took the view that the process of allocating land to diplomatic missions in the ACT does require an overhaul. It needs to be more flexible and responsive to the needs of our diplomatic community, local residents and the city. It needs to be updated to reflect the changing nature of Canberra as a modern and mature city facing the usual challenges of urban development, noting of course its significant and special role as our capital.

In looking at the evidence before the committee, we recommended that, in order to better utilise the limited land resources, the Australian government needs to strengthen policies and regulations surrounding diplomatic leases to ensure compliance with the conditions of those leases. Indeed, we recommended that land be resumed within 36 months where development has not yet commenced.

We also recommended complementary arrangements to those in place, including the use of medium- and high-density premises to house chanceries, the subdivision of existing leases and the use of residential land and commercial properties to house missions—noting, of course, that there is a security footprint which those missions currently occupy. The committee has also urged that in the future there should be a steady evolution, if you like, to a more commercial approach to looking at these issues, such as that which applies in Washington.

The committee has also recommended the development of a long-term strategy for the allocation of land to diplomatic missions in the ACT and that it should be developed in conjunction with DFAT, the AFP and the ACT government to integrate with ACT plans. We need to look at a policy for medium- and high-density properties, a mechanism for subdividing existing leases—noting, of course, that some countries are sitting on substantial economic assets when they do not necessarily want to maintain such large sites and that in these global economic times, where there is pressure on the local post, it might actually be a good thing for them to be able to release some equity from those properties and in turn make more space available to other countries that might like to establish a mission.

We need to look at a review of resources in O'Malley, Yarralumla and Deakin to ensure their optimal use for diplomatic purposes. We also recommended that, on that basis, given this need for a new approach, draft amendment 78 should be withdrawn. We are very pleased to note that the government has responded by saying it would withdraw draft amendment 78 as a stand-alone proposal and would be looking to some of the broader responses that need to be addressed.

In closing, I want to thank all of those who contributed, not least of all my committee colleagues, including Senator Humphries, who I know has taken a very active interest in what is an issue of importance to the nation and to the capital as well as to our diplomatic community. We did receive terrific evidence from a range of sources, including Washington DC. I think the outcome of this inquiry, in the finest tradition of parliamentary committees, reflects a bipartisan approach to policymaking, to the benefit of all.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.