Page 2845 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 17 August 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
• the importance of the Griffin plan as the blueprint, acknowledging that the city hasn’t reached its full potential;
• the view that the city is currently unattractive and becoming run down;
• major tourist destinations are widely distributed and poorly accessible from the city area;
• concern that City Hill and the city centre is divided by a road system and that traffic dominates the central streets;
• the desire to open access to the lake from the city;
• concern that large areas of developable land are adversely affected by car parks and expressway ramps;
• the importance of establishing the main road access prior to undertaking other work; and
• the need for inner, middle and outer city road bypasses.
The main differences between the proposals relate to which roads are kept, widened or pedestrianised, whether development occurs on and under City Hill, where future commercial and residential development should occur, and public transport options.
Our concern is that the agenda to redevelop City Hill is being driven very fast—too fast—by a relatively small group of people with a relatively narrow focus. The Greens have already pointed out that the central Canberra task force lacks the voices of many groups with an interest in Civic. It is dominated by business and government, which perhaps may not matter in this early stage. However, we recommend that it must become broader if it wants to deliver a Civic plan that answers the needs of Canberra residents and visitors.
Some of the stakeholders whom we believe should be specifically invited to comment on the Civic project are: the Ngunnawal and visiting Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander people; people living in the region who use Canberra as their centre; young people and children; parents; residents of Civic, which is a growing constituency; public transport users; car drivers; tourists; older people; small business owners who might like to be located in Civic and thus make it more diverse; people with a disability and their carers; people with a mental illness; police and security experts; community organisations currently providing services in Civic and those who may in the future; ANU and CIT students; the homeless; office workers, including government employees as office workers and not as government employees; artists and performers; sports people; people travelling through on their way to other places—why don’t they stop at Civic; people for whom English is not the first language; and, of course, shoppers.
While this list is long, it is not exhaustive and indicates a diversity of people with an interest in Civic. Without their involvement we cannot be said to have broad community support for the expenditure of millions of dollars, making it very difficult for any successive government to progress the plans of the business people, the government and the bureaucrats—those who are currently inside the process. Furthermore, we need broad support in this Assembly, which has been elected to represent the views of the community. A tripartisan approach will facilitate a good outcome for Civic. But that is only the beginning.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .