Page 167 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 14 February 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
National Capital Plan
MR COLLAERY (Attorney-General) (4.56): Mr Speaker, I have short comments to make in relation to a subsidiary aspect of a debate that was on this afternoon in relation to the National Capital Plan. Firstly, when we talk here in this Assembly about whether we, as politicians, agree about the broad thrust of those policies - and we all accept that we have two planning systems, for better or worse - there is another side to that debate, and that is what the legal situation is in relation to the draft National Capital Plan. You can have all the views you like, but so far as the courts are concerned they may have a definitive view.
I am happy to inform the Assembly that there is a very strong legal view, on the best advice available to me as Attorney, that some aspects of the draft National Capital Plan exceed the powers and the intention behind the legislation, the Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land Management) Act. Let me remind members that the Federal Minister, when introducing the Bill, said:
The purpose of the plan is to ensure that the Commonwealth's national capital interests in the Territory are fully protected, without otherwise involving the Commonwealth in matters that should be the prerogative of the Canberra community.
He went on to say that the Bill will allow the people of the Territory to control the day to day planning and development of their home.
The Act uses the term "national significance", and it is on the concept of national significance that the detailed draft National Capital Plan is built. There has been much debate on that issue among lawyers, but firstly the Act does not define national significance, so we are left to work it out. Under the Acts Interpretation Act we are allowed, as lawyers - and the courts are as well - to go to the extrinsic evidence available.
That extrinsic evidence will be the debates in the Federal Parliament. At last we have law reform, at least at the Federal level, such that we can now go to the debates and find out what an Act was meant to produce. I read out that quote to you, and I suggest to you that volume 2 of the draft National Capital Plan does not fully recognise the role of the Territory Planning Authority.
The national significance aspect has been intruded upon. We need to recognise that we have some legality situations that may well be resolved by the affected parties. They may well be the Commonwealth; they may well be this Territory, as a party to litigation; there may well be other litigants. But certainly in one area there seems to be a very clear transgression.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .