Page 1266 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 23 August 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
no way a reflection on Mr Justice Kelly or his decision. There can be no criticism of Mr Justice Kelly, because he has acted properly, within currently applicable appeal procedures. It is my intention to focus on the economic consequences for the city centre, and indeed for the ACT, of that decision.
It is not going too far to say that the Canberra Times site decision is a landmark in the planning processes of Canberra. It was not far off the mark for the Canberra Times itself to headline its story on the decision "Civic at Standstill". Of course, the decision does not only affect the central business district; it will have ramifications right throughout the Territory.
Because of the enormity of the ramifications deriving from the precedent established by this decision, it is timely to assert what many have been saying for years; namely, that a court of law is no place to decide planning issues. The Canberra Times site decision provides a good illustration of the sense of that opinion.
The decision raises two crucial matters which must be dealt with. The first is the short-term problem of how to reactivate the particular project and others now in abeyance because of the decision, and the second is the long-term problem of planning for development and land use and establishing adequate processes for appeals.
In relation to the short-term problem, the matters raised by the Canberra Times site are more than simply localised planning issues. The location makes it a city planning matter, and resolution of the problem involves the consideration of wide-ranging matters that take into account the totality of the area in question; that is, the Civic centre. I am referring, for example, to balancing residential, business and recreational concerns; to consideration of environmental issues; and to the provision of transportation adequate to the task of moving large numbers of people, commuters and shoppers, into and out of the area.
There are some matters that bear on this broad issue. They include, firstly, the fact that the development of section 38 was encouraged on the understanding - and I emphasise this - that Civic would be the base for expansion of office facilities; secondly, the fact that this expansion has not occurred to the extent then predicted, with the Civic work force now approximately 24,000 rather than the projected figure of 29,000; and, further, the fact that the required space per office worker has increased from 14 square metres five years ago to 20 square metres today. Thus, while extra space is now required, it does not necessarily translate into extra workers.
I cite these points, not to be partisan on the issue of the Canberra Times site but to show the complexities of planning decisions, complexities that underline the question whether
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .