The dispute over the placing and naming of an ACT park to mark the sister-city relationship with the Japanese city of Nara should have been completely unnecessary.
There was a failure by the ACT Government to see the national perspective and a failure by national planning authorities to assert it when necessary. More seriously there has been a failure to open processes to enable early objection to proposals so they can be amended without loss of face by politicians and third parties.
Canberra is the national capital. It means that the people of Canberra have to accept that the Federal Parliament and Government, representing the people of Australia, have a role to play, but in the general context of Australia being a democracy, the people of Canberra are entitled to a wide degree of self-determination, especially on matters that directly affect them.
The areas of keenest conflict, of course, are planning and land use.
At self-government in 1989 various structures were put in place that were sound for the purpose of dealing with Canberra’s dual role. But they have been systematically undermined over the past six years by politicians, both federal and territory, who cannot bear power to be devolved.
In particular, the national planning authority, which does not even have the word planning in its name any more, has singularly failed in its task to give broad direction. The plethora of proposals it had for the central national area two years ago, for example, seem to have disappeared down an expensive black hole. On the ACT front, there never has been a planning authority in the sense envisaged by the self-government legislation, and now even the shell of that has disappeared.
In their place, land use is determined by political expediency. Most of the decisions are made in secret. There may have been consultation, but not public exposure.
This has resulted in the fiasco over the park to mark the sister city relationship with Nara and to a lesser extent the ferry question. The sister city relationship with Nara has been very beneficial to the ACT and no-one could reasonably object to a park to mark that relationship.
As the proposal was to put the park on land in the central national area, there was a national element to it. The ACT Government wanted to call it a “”peace” park. That has evoked widespread debate and dispute. It has resulted in Prime Minister John Howard virtually demanding it not be named that because Japan has not atoned for the war in the way Germany has and in things like its textbook policy some of its leaders continue to attempt to cover up or play down its wartime atrocities. Mr Howard thought, quite reasonably, that a “”peace” park would be offensive to many Australians. It is unfortunate that he has been forced to play such a heavy hand.
The tragedy is that the sister-city relationship has so much to offer at that level and now the people of Nara have been unnecessarily offended. The fiasco could easily have been avoided if the NCA and what passes for an ACT planning authority had been more open. If these sort of proposals got aired publicly before the event, objectors could put their case before politicians locked themselves in or commit themselves to third parties.
The ACT should publicise all of its proposals for designated land in the national areas before committing itself. The NCA should open its monthly board meeting to the public and not approve things that have not sat on the table for a month.
Politicians and bureaucrats should not fear this sort of openness; they should welcome it. In the long run it makes governance easier.
Chief Minister Kate Carnell’s idea of a joint planning authority is worth looking at if the result is a more active, open body.