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

As I began to say earlier, in the short time that draft amendment 53 to the National Capital Plan relating to the Albert Hall and surrounding areas has been around there has been: an initial fiery public meeting where the National Capital Authority sent representatives who were not fully briefed or provided with the necessary information, resulting in a debacle; a petition against DA53 with 3,352 signatures gathered in just a few weeks; the formation of the Friends of the Albert Hall Association; a massive public meeting in the hall; extensive media reporting of the Albert Hall saga; two unprecedented interventions by the NCA board in an effort to quell mounting disquiet that dictated changes to the draft amendment on the spot; a commitment to an unprecedented comprehensive consultation strategy to consider all aspects of the amendment, including traffic, heritage and urban design; an ACT government bid to secure the listing of Albert Hall on the National Heritage List under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act; and outrage over the prospect of traffic lights on Commonwealth Avenue adjacent to Albert Hall. All of this demonstrates that DA53 is yet another example of the poor management and application of the National Capital Plan by the National Capital Authority.

This latest debacle allows me to make the following general observations. I would like to make two general points. Firstly, the overarching National Capital Plan is losing practical relevance to the local community because its consultation provisions are applied by the NCA in a way that continually alienates stakeholders and ignores their concerns about planning decisions. Secondly, the federal minister has failed to act to improve the performance of the NCA, particularly in the area of responding to stakeholder concerns through consultation processes. Specifically in relation to draft amendment 53, I would like to make the following observations. The board appears to have lost confidence in the NCA’s handling of DA53. This is illustrated by the board’s intervention on two separate occasions. It is extraordinary that the board responds to public comment but the NCA itself seems incapable of doing so. The NCA’s poor handling of DA53 consultation processes includes their specific misrepresentation of their interaction with members of the community as described at Senate estimates. The NCA’s spurious attack on the ACT government’s preparation of the draft conservation management plan, or CMP, in an effort to deflect criticism of their own poor handling of DA53 implies party political bias. In fact it seems that the NCA are incapable of engaging in any consultation processes that retain integrity and hold the confidence of all stakeholders.

I would like to take this opportunity to describe the changes that have taken place to DA53 as a result of the board’s specific interventions. On 2 April the board intervened and decided:

(a)

not to proceed with a 25 metre landmark building north of Albert Hall, adjacent to Lake Burley Griffin and to ensure primary uses will not be commercial. To consider as an alternative the benefits or otherwise of providing for a future low scale public building, such as a performing arts centre or concert hall with ancillary uses;

(b)

the balance of the land north of Albert Hall be reconsidered as a public lakeside park (open space) subject to the agreement of the ACT Government; and

(c)

to conduct a series of special community and professional workshops on heritage, traffic, and urban design, and on any other significant matters identified in submissions on Albert Hall received by the close of public consultation ...

On 22 May it was revealed in a Senate estimates hearing that the NCA board had once again intervened and determined that Albert Hall could continue to be used as a cultural facility and for ancillary short-term commercial retail activities—that is, to permit the current use with the addition of social community facility land uses. It was also agreed that, because of the significant changes that had been made both on 2 April and on 22 May, the draft amendment—with any further revisions as a result of the workshops and discussions with the ACT government—would be re-released for a further period of public consultation.

In making observations about these unprecedented interventions I want to make the point that I am pleased that the board intervened in the case of DA53 in these circumstances. But the very fact that they had to does not augur well for the future. It reflects poorly on the NCA of course, but the huge precedent it sets for the future is extremely worrying. It is essentially a political level intervention borne out of a lack of confidence in the NCA. While the position taken by the NCA board has been almost universally recognised as at least a step in the right direction, I wonder what would have happened if they had taken a different view—one that the community found abhorrent. This would truly have undermined any skerrick of credibility that the NCA had left. One would presume that there would exist no motivation for unpopular intervention, as opposed to popular intervention, but the precedent is now there nonetheless.

Another clue that indicates that the board is not all goodness and light in its motivation can be found in the comment published by the chairman, Mr Michael Ball, in the Canberra Times on 5 April. Mr Ball chose to be politically mischievous in his attempt to lay blame for the vehement negative speculation about the heritage status of Albert Hall on the ACT government’s entirely appropriate withholding at that stage of the draft conservation management plan. This is a tactic that was later echoed by the NCA’s CEO, Ms Pegrum, at the public meeting held at the hall late in May. She spoke way past her fairly allotted time to make this point again and again. It impressed no-one and lowered the credibility of the NCA even further in the eyes of many of those present. I found it sadly predictable that the National Capital Authority was so unprofessional as to indulge in this attempt at party political point-scoring in an effort to deflect criticism of its own conduct. As many in this place would know, I am not averse to scoring the odd political point if I am able to, given that part of my role is to hold the Howard government to account. But if the Liberal Party had a political point to make they should have briefed Senator Humphries, who was at that public meeting and took his allotted opportunity to speak.

Finally on this issue of DA53, I urge that all information about the future of Albert Hall that can be tipped into the public domain be made available to inform the extensive consultation process. I am aware that the ACT government’s tender consideration for the management of the hall is proceeding. But, given that the timing of this consideration overlaps with the now greatly expanded consultation effort of the NCA, it would be useful for the tenderers themselves to declare their intentions. I understand, through hearsay only, that there are two tenderers: the Hyatt and the current contractor.

This unfortunate episode relating to DA53 is another example of how the National Capital Authority have tried to undermine the ACT government’s planning processes. In this case they have not directed their criticisms of the ACT government at the government’s initiation of any planning ideas but, instead, they seem to have taken every opportunity that exists to criticise the ACT government with their involvement in DA53. It reminds me of the NCA’s intervention in planning issues for which the ACT government did have direct responsibility, such as the Gungahlin Drive extension, the Pierces Creek resettlement and the EpiCentre issue. It carries with it the suspicion of partisan political conduct by the NCA that is aimed against the ACT Labor government. I hope I am wrong. I know the NCA will contest this issue as they do all the time. They deny any such political involvement, but again and again we see conduct by them that leaves us with few other conclusions to draw. Nonetheless, I choose to believe that there are enough people from both major parties in senior positions in both the local and federal spheres of government in the ACT who can see the damage that has been done to the reputation of the NCA as a result of these shenanigans and the generally poor performance.

I can see a better future. If there were some astute amendments to the National Capital Plan and some accompanying changes to the role of the NCA, I believe it would be possible to achieve a mature partnership between ACT and federal planning authorities. I see no reason why this cannot be put in place. Only then will we have an opportunity to build on and improve the planning and economic confidence in the ACT via both planning authorities. It would ensure that the democratic rights of parties with an interest in planning matters are fully respected.