Page 1281 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 23 August 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
on the Canberra leasehold system has not been placed before the parliament. However, times have changed and we now have self-government, and we must accept this responsibility and seek to develop our own planning and development system of controls which fits these unique circumstances, a matter, Mr Speaker, that the Rally has been strongly advocating since and prior to its election to this place, and during the election campaign.
The 1984 metropolitan Canberra policy plan and development plan set the scene for the future of Canberra. One can examine the reasons for the acceptance of the dispersed plan rather than a concentrated one and see why the Y plan was confirmed. The plan estimated, for example, the difference in cost for provision of car parking spaces. For a dispersed plan it was $50m for an extra 8,100 spaces and $110m for 180,000 spaces for a concentrated plan. That, Mr Speaker, is one of the reasons why we have the Y plan today.
However, what happened in the years that followed the plan that was produced in the metropolitan policy plan was the lack of development of infrastructure in the Civic area but the development of offices, at the expense of developing the Tuggeranong town centre and delays in developing offices in the Belconnen and Woden centres. Those of us in the community who participated in the development of this concept soon realised that the Ministers responsible for development in our city were long on rhetoric but short on delivery.
The prime example of this, Mr Speaker, is the claim that the Department of Social Security's complex in Tuggeranong is a major plus for the town centre and the residents of Tuggeranong seeking opportunities to work close to their homes. This claim is true, of course; there is no doubt about that. However, as I have suggested before, it is three or four years too late. I note, Mr Speaker, as I read through the metropolitan policy plan, statements like "A major strength of Canberra's urban structure is its system of centres combined with the transport network. They produce a relatively efficient and congestion-free city, despite its apparent widespread character", and "The dispersed plan would require a lower level of government investment to implement than would the concentrated plan".
These are the sorts of issues that Mr Justice Kelly raised in his historic judgment and the reasons why he upheld the metropolitan plan. However, now that the decision has been made, it is time to look at the issues and see how we, as a community, can either live with the decision or seek another way in which the site can be developed. This will more than likely require compromise from all parties involved in this matter - the developers, the planners and the Canberra community.
It is interesting, Mr Speaker, that the answers to this development problem in Civic are the need to allow some
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .