Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to 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.

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

Senator Brown seems to be supporting the disallowance of amendments to the National Capital Plan on the basis of the process involved, not the substantive issues. With respect, Senator Brown has his facts wrong yet again. The consultation process for these particular amendments goes back a very long way. The Griffith Legacy—

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

That would be ‘Griffin’!

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to 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.

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

Don’t say that. You are being offensive, Senator.

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

That is not offensive. You really are beyond the pale sometimes.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I remind senators about shouting across the chamber.

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

There is a comment that there should be more people and more activity in the central area. It is a comment made by some; it is not perhaps a universal view. The NCA has gone into this, as has the ACT government. There is this proposal for these amendments which will increase the attractiveness of Canberra. I should point out perhaps that, once implemented, these amendments will provide an additional 12 hectares—I want to make that point—of dedicated public open space associated with the inevitable development in these areas.

The amendments—and I thought the Greens would be very interested in this—address water-sensitive stormwater treatment through catchment and settlement ponds; recreation; commuter cycling; and sustainable public transport. They are all areas that the Greens pay lip-service to in their general comments, yet these amendments are going to address those issues and the Greens are trying to stop them. As I said, I could go on at some length about what the amendments will do, but that does not seem to be the point of the disallowance.

I should mention before concluding that all Australians and particularly Canberrans will be delighted that the government has committed $58.8 million over the next four years to two major infrastructure projects to transform the centre of the national capital consistent with the Griffin Legacy. I see that Senator Lundy is here representing the ACT. I am sure that she will get up and, in her speech, congratulate the government for providing those funds and proceeding with the Griffin Legacy, which, as I said, has been so long in the making. As to consultation and the people involved, qualified, world-class planners as well as the general community have been involved in all of that. That is good news for the ACT. It is good news for all of us, because I think all Australians are very proud of this city as our national capital.

The budget also commits more than $3.1 million per annum for the maintenance of roads and other assets in the capital. The two projects involve the duplication and upgrading of Constitution Avenue and the bridging of Kings Avenue over Parkes Way at the Russell roundabout. The projects to be undertaken by the National Capital Authority will bring direct benefits to Canberra motorists every day of the week. Everyone who drives a car in Canberra will be very pleased about that. Constitution Avenue will be duplicated and a new, quality streetscape will be created. From Russell to Vernon Circle there will be two traffic lanes in each direction, one with bus priority, and on-street parking on both sides of the avenue. A quality public domain will be provided, including pavements, street lighting, street furniture and landscaping. These improvements will realise the avenue as the great boulevard that was envisaged by Walter Burley Griffin for the National Triangle.

The bridging of Kings Avenue over Parkes Way at Russell roundabout will remove one of the worst traffic bottlenecks in the capital. Parkes Way will be lowered and new bridges will carry Kings Avenue traffic over Parkes Way through to the Defence headquarters at Russell. This work will also restore Kings Avenue as one side of Griffin’s National Triangle. These works will significantly reduce travel times between Parliament House, the city and the airport. Construction is going to begin in 2008 and will be completed in 2010. As these works will be constructed entirely within the existing road reservations, they can proceed regardless of this particular motion.

I mention all of those things to indicate this government’s and certainly Minister Lloyd’s great support for the national capital and what it means for all Australians. Our government over many years has been instrumental in building Canberra to the great city it is today. I know that the founder of the Liberal Party, Sir Robert Menzies, was a great supporter of the national capital and all that is in it. Some of the very fine features of the national capital are things that evolved during Sir Robert Menzies’s reign as Prime Minister of this great country. Over the last 11 years our government has put enormous resources and effort into adding to the great city that the Australian Capital Territory is. It is a national capital of which we are all proud. I think the initiatives announced in the budget, along with the amendments proposed for the plan, will make it an even greater national capital for all Australians.

Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Local Government) Share this | Link to 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.

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

I thank senators for their contribution, but let me say that Senator Lundy has got it wrong about the Senate. The role here is to uphold democracy, to be a house of review, to be a backstop when government makes mistakes, to be a shoulder holder for the government and to make sure that wrong decisions are taken up by the keeper. To confuse that, as Senator Lundy has just done, with the Senate having a role of planner for the national capital is to have a basic misunderstanding of what this place is about and of its constitutional authority and responsibility. In its own press release the committee said:

Federal Parliament’s Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories has recommended that the Griffin Legacy Amendments be disallowed so that the National Capital Authority has the opportunity to refine the amendments.

That press release came out under the name of the Chairman, Senator Ross Lightfoot, and of the Deputy Chair, Senator Kate Lundy. Senator Lundy dismisses that as saying that that was a call to the government to disallow these amendments so that they could take them back and consider them. But when the government failed to do that, the Labor Party capitulated, threw up their hands and said, ‘Well, what can we do?’ The Greens have come in and said, ‘We won’t capitulate to the government on this.’ As Senator Lundy said, many planners and architects ‘disagree’ with the NCA’s decision. She went on to say that at the roundtable there was a sense of the magnitude of the concerns and that the committee ‘were shocked at the vehemence and passion’ shown by people about these amendments.

Do we simply say that the government turned a deaf ear to that and truncated the committee’s deliberations, so we will capitulate as well? Of course we do not. The role of the Senate is to ensure proper process and that citizens are heard, not least when it comes to the planning for the next 20 to 30 years of this great capital. So I disagree with Senator Lundy; I think it is the role of the Senate and, indeed, of the opposition to stand up to a government when it is failing proper process and failing the citizens. We are a house of review. It is our job to uphold the review potential and power of the Senate, even when the government has the numbers. Had Senator Lundy supported the Greens on this matter, it is very likely that Senator Humphries opposite—he is not opposite now, but he would have had to come in here for a vote—would have been tested on this matter as to whether he stood up for due process for the national capital or he did not. Now he escapes that test because Labor has not put him to it.

Senator Lundy said that we do not need the Senate to be a third planning authority. We do not expect that role. But we do expect it to have the gumption to stand up for proper process when there has been such heartfelt and very informed opinion against the amendments which we are dealing with today. There is no reason why the National Capital Authority, for example, should not have been required to implement detailed rules and enshrine them into the National Capital Plan so that planners and people who love this city but have a different point of view could see that there are at least guidelines for the future, not a void into which all sorts of prescriptive and vested interests can move in the future against the wider interests of the citizens.

Canberra is the nation’s capital. I agree with the government that we are all proud of it and of the way it has developed, what it is and what it represents for this country. But I agree with Senator Lundy that the asseveration by the government senator that Canberra has got a dead heart is insulting, appalling and a blighted view of the magnificence of this green capital. What does the government want Canberra to be—Las Vegas? Is there some form of transformation of Canberra into a different sort of city that the government has in mind here? That is at the very heart of this matter because of course there will be big development proposals coming down the line to jump in on these amended rules; of course there will be pressure coming from the big end of town. What the minister’s representative disclosed here today is that this government is amenable to that pressure. So we should be alarmed and worried. He calls it the dead heart. No, it is not. It is a vibrant, beautiful, living heart of a city that is different. If only other cities had the green space, the relaxation, the delight to the eye that Canberra presents to the citizen and the visitor alike. That comment from the minister’s representative was insulting, unbecoming and ignorant of what this capital is about.

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

I’ve done more for this capital than you will ever do!

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

He says he has done more for the capital. He has just undone it in three words, in his description of how he views this city, and he should be ashamed of that. I commend this disallowance motion to the Senate. It should put the citizens back into the picture. It should allow for a better period of reflection, debate and even finetuning, although there are major concerns for experts in the field. This process should not be guillotined, as it effectively will be if this last opportunity is overridden, when what we have at stake is 20 to 30 years of the future planning and development of this great city. I commend this disallowance motion to all senators and I hope they will support it.

Question put:

That the motion (Senator Bob Brown’s) be agreed to.