Page 4089 - Week 11 - Thursday, 21 September 2017
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
believe that it would be possible to list the central national area and inner hills carefully in a way that would protect things like the integrity of the parliamentary precinct, which is basically what we are talking about here, without stopping sensible changes. If this privatisation does go ahead, such a listing would be increasingly important to get the precinct protected as a heritage place in its own right.
I want to talk about the planning protections on East Block and West Block, which fall into the National Capital Authority’s planning system. Given, as I said, the lack of any precinct-wide heritage protection, the planning protections are very important. Unfortunately, it is clear that the federal Liberal government has rushed through the planning rules prior to sale and they are too weak to protect one of Canberra’s most iconic areas. I have three main concerns. Firstly, once the buildings are sold, the National Capital Plan allows commercial development like retailing, a motel or a medical centre. These are concerns because these types of developments are often, frankly, pretty ugly in appearance. While the NCA prohibits billboards, there is, I think, still the ability to have intrusive signage, which almost certainly would be the case with these buildings.
Secondly, the Parliamentary Zone Precinct Code in the National Capital Plan was designed for major national building projects under government control. As such, it relies on planning rules that are extremely flexible and includes wording like “enhance the existing character and quality of the landscape”. I really suspect that these rules would be impossible to enforce should—I was going to say “development approval” but I think it is called “works approval” in the National Capital Plan—they ever go to court. Finally, while there are more detailed rules that apply in general sections of the National Capital Plan, they are generic and not easily applicable. For example, the rule about building height says that buildings should not exceed two storeys. However, East Block and West Block are already three storeys. How on earth could that work? A dodgy developer will therefore be able to argue that the height limit is clearly not appropriate and something a lot taller could be and should be approved.
In conclusion, I and the Greens think that there are very good reasons that this Assembly should oppose the privatisation of East Block and West Block, and we will call for an urgent halt of the sales process. We also oppose the privatisation of the parliamentary precinct more generally. On Canberra’s purpose, Canberra was built as the parliamentary precinct for our role as the national capital of Australia and it is important that the federal government does not give up its responsibilities in this regard. We should also oppose the privatisation of the parliamentary precinct more generally. As Mr Rattenbury highlighted, privatisation will not help to bring more life to the parliamentary precinct and it does come with many risks to Canberra’s heritage and Australia’s national heritage.
I am therefore disappointed that the government will not be supporting the Greens’ motion on this important issue. The ALP amendment is much weaker than our motion. I am even more disappointed with the Liberals, because they are the ones with the best connections to the federal Liberal Party. Support from the Liberals in this
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video