COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA Official Committee Hansard JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE NATIONAL CAPITAL AND EXTERNAL TERRITORIES Reference: Role of the National Capital Authority FRIDAY, 15 AUGUST 2003 CANBERRA BY AUTHORITY OF THE PARLIAMENT INTERNET The Proof and Official Hansard transcripts of Senate committee hearings, some House of Representatives committee hearings and some joint com- mittee hearings are available on the Internet. Some House of Representa- tives committees and some joint committees make available only Official Hansard transcripts. The Internet address is: http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard To search the parliamentary database, go to: http://search.aph.gov.au JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE NATIONAL CAPITAL AND EXTERNAL TERRITORIES Friday, 15 August 2003 Members: Senator Lightfoot (Chair), Senator Crossin (Deputy Chair), Senators Hogg, Lundy, Scullion and Stott Despoja and Mr Causley, Ms Ellis, Mr Johnson, Mr Neville, Mr Snowdon and Mr Cameron Thompson Senators and members in attendance: Senators Hogg, Lightfoot and Lundy and Ms Ellis Terms of reference for the inquiry: To inquire into and report on: The role of the National Capital Authority. In particular the Committee will consider: • the role of the National Capital Authority as outlined in the Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land Management) Act 1988; • the Authority’s overall management of the National Capital Plan; • management issues relating to designated land under the National Capital Plan; and • the relationship between the Authority and Territory planning authorities. WITNESSES ADRIAN, Dr Colin, Acting Chief Planning Executive, ACT Planning and Land Authority ....................85 BINNING, Mr Brian Roger (Private capacity)............................................................................................164 BUCKLEY, Ms Kristal, President, Australia International Committee on Monuments and Sites ........149 CONNELL, Mr Anthony James, Member, Canberra Division, Engineers Australia..............................143 EVANS, Mr Michael Elliott, President, Canberra Division, Engineers Australia ...................................143 GORDON, Mr Peter, Executive Director, Office of Business and Tourism, ACT Chief Minister’s Department........................................................................................................................................................85 HAWKINS, Mr Lincoln, Deputy Chief Executive, ACT Chief Minister’s Department ............................85 HETTINGER, Mr Michael Paul, Executive, Save the Ridge Inc...............................................................119 HORN, Mr Graham Victor, Member, North Canberra Community Council..........................................133 MANDERSON, Mr Ivor Roland, Policy Adviser, Office of Kerrie Tucker, ACT Greens Member of the Legislative Assembly for Molonglo.....................................................................................................155 MARTIN, Mr Eric John, Member, Australia International Committee on Monuments and Sites........149 MURPHY, Ms Julie, Chair, Save the Ridge Inc. .........................................................................................119 PALMER, Mr Malcolm, Fellow, Canberra Division, Engineers Australia...............................................143 PHAM, Ms Tu, Deputy Chief Executive, ACT Department of Treasury....................................................85 PINTER, Mr Stephen John, Member, Canberra Division, Engineers Australia......................................143 SATRAPA, Mr James Frederick, Treasurer, North Canberra Community Council..............................133 TANNER, Dr Greg, Convenor, Save the Ridge Inc.....................................................................................119 THOMPSON, Mr Alan, Chief Executive, ACT Department of Urban Services ........................................85 TOMLINS, Mr George, Executive Director, Strategic Group, ACT Bushfire Recovery Task Force ..................................................................................................................................................................85 TONKIN, Mr Robert Henry, Chief Executive, ACT Chief Minister’s Department ..................................85 Friday, 15 August 2003 JOINT NCET 85 Committee met at 9.08 a.m. ADRIAN, Dr Colin, Acting Chief Planning Executive, ACT Planning and Land Authority GORDON, Mr Peter, Executive Director, Office of Business and Tourism, ACT Chief Minister’s Department HAWKINS, Mr Lincoln, Deputy Chief Executive, ACT Chief Minister’s Department PHAM, Ms Tu, Deputy Chief Executive, ACT Department of Treasury THOMPSON, Mr Alan, Chief Executive, ACT Department of Urban Services TOMLINS, Mr George, Executive Director, Strategic Group, ACT Bushfire Recovery Task Force TONKIN, Mr Robert Henry, Chief Executive, ACT Chief Minister’s Department CHAIRMAN—I welcome representatives of the ACT government to give evidence. These hearings are legal proceedings of the parliament and warrant the same respect as the proceedings of parliament itself. Giving false or misleading evidence is a serious matter and may be regarded as a contempt of parliament. The committee has received a submission, No. 31, from the ACT government. Are there any corrections or amendments you would like to make to your submission? Mr Tonkin—No. CHAIRMAN—The committee prefers that evidence be taken in public, but if you wish to give confidential evidence to the committee you may request that the hearings be held in camera and the committee will consider your particular request. Before we ask some questions, do you wish to make an opening statement? Mr Tonkin—Thank you, Mr Chairman. I will take the opportunity to make a few brief points, if I may. CHAIRMAN—Please proceed. Mr Tonkin—The ACT government welcomes the opportunity to provide evidence to the committee in the conduct of the inquiry. As set out in the government submission, the ACT government fully accepts and supports the need to maintain a Commonwealth authority with responsibility for the national capital aspects of the ACT. We believe this is fundamental. I suppose the issues raised in the submission go to the issue of the scope of that authority and the impact that authority should have on the territory as a whole. The National Capital Authority and the legislation which underpins it were, in our view, right for the time when the territory moved into self-government. The issue for us now is whether the scope of the authority of the National Capital Authority is appropriate for the circumstances 14 years on from then. If you look at the territory, at how it has changed and at how the ACT government and its administration have NATIONAL CAPITAL AND EXTERNAL TERRITORIES NCET 86 JOINT Friday, 15 August 2003 developed, we would argue that it is appropriate to reconsider the necessary scope of the impact of the National Capital Authority. If you walk outside this building and look around, what you see is the Griffin plan in operation. You see a garden city, you see the great national institutions, you see a landscape setting. All of those things are important and central responsibilities of the National Capital Authority to safeguard. What you do not see when you are outside this building are the town centres of Belconnen, Woden, Gungahlin, Weston and Tuggeranong, the rural leaseholder areas of the territory or Namadgi National Park. All of those things are very important elements of the ACT, but we would contend that they are not as necessary in the points of detail for the preservation of the national capital interests. One of our contentions is that the territory—and its government and its people—needs to have the opportunity to influence the further development of those areas without prejudicing in any way the national capital characteristics. The government and the people of the ACT are very proud of the national capital role of Canberra and are, I would argue, as strong supporters of that role as anyone else in Australia. They would never, in my view and in the view of our government, prejudice that important role Canberra has. But there are questions about what we are seeking to preserve under the current roles of the National Capital Authority. Are we seeking to preserve the national characteristics of Canberra? The answer is yes; that is highly appropriate. Are we seeking to preserve the planning structure which has evolved over 50, 60 or 70 years and, more particularly, over the last 30 years? Is that what we are seeking to preserve? That is perhaps more questionable in terms of the Y-plan or expanding bits of the Y-plan and so on. They are legitimate issues to be debated. Representation has been made to the committee about the need for simplification of the approval process. We fully support that. There should be one approval process for each parcel of land. In many cases at the moment, there are two. That adds complexity, uncertainty and cost— all of which are undesirable. We would like to see a simplification of the processes so that people who are doing developments, who are looking to improve and grow the city, can do so with greater certainty. A number of the submissions to this inquiry have talked about a two-tiered planning system and have talked approvingly about that, the argument being that in the states there are state level planning arrangements and local government level planning arrangements, the broad picture and the detail. It has been suggested that that is appropriate for the territory. We do not agree