Ross Lightfoot (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present the report of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories, Review of the Griffin Legacy amendments. I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

The Griffin Legacy amendments are some of the most significant changes proposed for the future urban planning of Canberra. They seek to restate some of the key planning principles Griffin proposed and articulate specific strategic plans for the central national area. The amendments examined by the committee include amendment 56, the Griffin Legacy, principles and policies; amendment 59, City Hill Precinct; amendment 60, Constitution Avenue; and amendment 61, West Basin in Lake Burley Griffin. The committee supports the broad aims of the Griffin Legacy project. The aim of advancing Griffin’s plan to guide the future urban planning of Canberra through the 21st century is enviable. The committee, however, believes that the Griffin Legacy amendments can be improved. Through the roundtable public hearing evidence was provided which questioned the adequacy of parts of these amendments. These criticisms are not easily dismissed.

In relation to amendment 56, concerns were raised about excessive building height, traffic and transport implications, loss of vistas of national significance and loss of green space. In addition, there were concerns about the scale of the proposed developments and the lack of a rigorous planning rationale. At the same time, the committee’s examination revealed that there were concerns about the adequacy of the NCA’s consultation process. The examination of amendment 59 revealed concerns about the level of detail, issues about public funding and specific concerns about serious disruptions to traffic and excess building heights and loss of vistas. Amendment 60 notes that Constitution Avenue will become an elegant and vibrant mixed use grand boulevard linking London Circuit to Russell. The amendment was supported by key stakeholders including, for example, the Returned and Services League of Australia, the Canberra Institute of Technology and St John’s Church. Each of these groups has made valid cases for supporting the amendment.

The committee, however, has noted some of the concerns about the amendment which also cannot be easily dismissed—in particular, the scale of the proposal and the possible negative impact on the vista from Parliament House towards Constitution Avenue which is, perhaps, one of the most significant urban vistas in the nation. Amendment 61, West Basin in Lake Burley Griffin, is notable for its size and scope. It is proposed that part of the lake be reclaimed using infill taken from the proposed Parkes Way and Kings Avenue tunnel. The amendment provides for a land bridge over a section of Parkes Way for streets to extend to the lake. A waterfront promenade will be created and stepped back from that will be a series of buildings. Building height on the waterfront promenade will be limited to eight metres, with a maximum of two storeys. The parapet height of buildings fronting the promenade will be a maximum of 16 metres, and taller building elements to a maximum of 25 metres, and not exceeding 30 per cent of the site area may be considered. Taller buildings may be considered on sites north of Parkes Way.

In considering this matter further, the committee examined the NCA’s 2004 report, The Griffin Legacy, Canberra—the nation’s capital in the 21st century. In that report, the National Capital Authority set out a plan for West Basin which is moderate in tone, less dominated by development and much more inclusive through the use of extensive green area. Evidence to the committee suggested that the scale of development for West Basin should configure more closely to the NCA’s 2004 proposal.

As a result of the committee’s findings, the committee has recommended that amendments 56, 59, 60 and 61 be disallowed so that the NCA has the opportunity to further refine the amendments taking into account issues raised in the committee’s report. This finetuning is necessary and in the interests of Canberra and the nation.

I would like to express, on behalf of the committee, our gratitude to all those who participated in the inquiry and to the staff of the secretariat. I thank my committee colleagues for their cooperation and substantial contribution throughout the course of the inquiry. On behalf of the committee, I commend the report to the Senate.

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

I would like to add some comments to the tabling of this report of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories titled Review of the Griffin Legacy amendments. As deputy chair of that committee, I note Senator Lightfoot’s comments as chair.

This committee has had a longstanding frustration with the conduct of the National Capital Authority, particularly with its performance in the area of consultation. So it was with some disappointment that, despite what appears to have been very lengthy consultation with—and indeed concurrence of, in this case—the ACT planning authorities and the across-the-board bipartisan support of the Griffin Legacy amendments, so many concerns were raised at the round table forum held by the committee for the purposes of looking at the implications of the Griffin Legacy amendments.

For the record, as Senator Lightfoot said, we are talking about amendments 56, 59, 60 and 61. Despite acknowledging that there is general support for these amendments within the ACT government—and certainly by the majority, for all intents and purposes, of submitters in the NCA consultation process and by the coalition government itself—there are problems. The committee feels strongly enough about them to recommend to the minister that, as the minister, he consider moving disallowance of these amendments. The committee has recommended it in that form. I am certainly of the view, and the committee is of the view, that these amendments do not warrant tossing out, because that general support is there, but they do warrant refining. There are a number of areas, which I will not go through again, and which Senator Lightfoot has outlined, where improvements could be made. 

I would like to place a couple of points on the record about my concerns. They relate very specifically to parking and transport issues. The people of Canberra and the region who live and work around the central part of this city have been suffering for quite some time with parking issues. The NCA is responsible for this side of the lake in particular. But with increased development in Civic and the surrounding precinct, parking has become more and more difficult. It is not enough to make the assumption that people will make the choice to move to public transport in the absence of parking. The people of Canberra deserve better planning in relation to that. That includes issues like this—the Griffin Legacy—which does outline a plan for the next 25 years of development to take into account that amenity that I think everybody deserves with respect to transport. That was a particular concern that came out.

The other area of concern is the overall approach and level of detail in these amendments. It is a very particular challenge to draft amendments which set such long-term parameters. It is not about specific sites. It is about the general context and nature of future development. So in that sense these amendments are critically important to the ACT’s economy and to the nation’s capital. They do set the parameters for long-term development. We know that some of the models put forward to us are not all going to happen at once, but they will happen over time, and that is why we believe extra care ought to have been taken in the drafting of these amendments.

Going back to consultation, one particular weakness the committee found was the wide variety of views at our roundtable. We also acknowledge that many of the submissions that were identified by the National Capital Authority as being favourable to this were in fact not more than one-line submissions. There were a number in the pack of that 70 per cent which showed just single-line comments with no name and no attribution to them, collected through, I presume, the Griffin Legacy display which has been down at Regatta Point for quite a long time now.

We have made a recommendation in relation to consultation which is, sadly, a predictable thing for this committee to do in relation to the National Capital Authority, and that is that they explore improved ways in which to consult with the public. This is a bit of a broken record for this committee. One of the concerns expressed at the roundtable was that the feedback and the publishing of those submissions was a very poor process on the part of the NCA. What in fact happened in providing feedback was that the comments that were noted and responded to were not sourced, so submitters had no way of knowing if the committee was specifically responding to their concerns or to a general concern, or whether their concern was shared by everybody else.

So our second recommendation relates specifically to the National Capital Authority exploring options for ensuring submissions to all of the authority’s consultation processes are made publicly available, subject to full approval by the submitter and compliance with privacy principles. All they need to do is say, ‘Are you happy for your submission to be published?’ We were not convinced as a committee that the lengths to which the NCA went to to not identify submitters were appropriate—they just added confusion and I think promoted distrust amongst the community who made those submissions that the process was being handled adequately. I am confident the NCA will take this suggestion at face value and work again to improve their consultation processes.

Finally, what to do about it? I am certainly very strongly of the view that this place is not a place to arbitrate on ACT planning matters. It is of no help to the ACT economy nor indeed is it in the interests of the people of the ACT to have the Senate arbitrate on specific planning matters. That is why we as a committee have asked the minister to move disallowance in these amendments. If the minister moves disallowance then I believe that the Senate will respect his will. The reason we have suggested that disallowance is the way to go is that there is no other way to change these amendments. Because the amendments had already been tabled in parliament, they cannot be amended. What is unfortunate is that we were not able to provide this feedback to the minister prior to the amendments being tabled, which would have allowed the NCA and the minister to perhaps make those amendments if the minister was of the mind to take our advice, because we are an advisory committee only.

Ross Lightfoot (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We never had that opportunity.

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

That opportunity was never made available to the committee. In light of the roundtable, the committee is left with the only process to recommend to the minister that those refinements be made, hence we are recommending that the minister move disallowance. That is quite specific. I believe the only way that we would support a disallowance is if the minister moved it. I say that because I do not believe it is in the interests of the ACT that as a party or as a Senate we start to arbitrate on issues of planning. Yes, it is always political. It should not be as political as it is. I am firmly of the view—and I know the government does not share this view—that these matters should be an issue more for the democratically elected ACT government and the ACT planning authorities. But, that said, I have never advocated the view that the Senate ought to be the arbitrator on the specificity of planning amendments and requirements for the ACT.

I am not a planner. It is not my profession. I am very comfortable with my position in advising the government on the suitability of these amendments, based on feedback we get from professionals and stakeholders in the community who have a view. That is why, as I said, we are asking the minister to move disallowance. In that way, he would be able to show good faith that he is prepared to take the constructive advice of this committee.

Let me restate our position. The committee broadly supports the Griffin Legacy amendments. They are supported by, obviously, the coalition government. They are supported by the democratically elected ACT government. But there are improvements that could be made. So I urge the minister to take this action. I will not be supporting a disallowance motion unless it does come from the minister, for the purposes of permitting the minister to make those refinements and hopefully get along with the process. I am gravely disappointed in the National Capital Authority for once again failing in their duty to do the best they possibly can with their consultation obligations under the National Capital Plan and act.

Question agreed to.