Page 1271 - Week 05 - Thursday, 25 June 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
a good one. The threat of the loss of amenity has been enough to rally the population, leading to the deletion of what we came to know in the election campaign as the pink bits or, in the words of the planners, investigation areas. Now these are back on the agenda to be dealt with bit by bit.
The Government's decision this week has provided the impetus for this motion to be debated today. It is not good enough to decide in an ad hoc and incremental way what is good for the current and future residents of the national capital. To recap what I said in the Assembly during my inaugural speech, Canberra has always been a planned city and successive management policy plans have ensured that a vision for the future was enshrined in its development. It is through a visionary approach that we have gained the Canberra we have now. We must build on this for the future and resist those who advocate that Canberra should become like other cities. While I hold these ideals, I also recognise that Canberra is a much different place now from what it was in the 1960s, with near full employment, a job for every school leaver, a small population, and a Federal government purse to fund the highest of principles. Our change in circumstances leads me to believe that it is even more important now that our ideals for the future are put in concrete form; otherwise we risk losing the great advantage we have of being a planned city.
Let me turn to the terms of my motion. The question is asked: What should Canberra be like in the year 2020? That is less than 30 years away. What impact can we have at that time if we do not follow the basic precept of Canberra's development, that is, forward planning? If we do not define our infrastructure and social needs for the future and, instead, adopt an incremental approach to planning, what are we leaving the next generation of policymakers? I would suggest, if other cities are studied, that we will be leaving them massive problems to overcome. Our definition of what we want is not just the definition of the planners, based on what they have worked with compared to how they think it should be. Self-government has given Canberrans responsibility for the bills. It also gives us responsibility for the vision. What do the people living in Tuggeranong see as the future of Canberra? Decentralised employment or more transport options to the city centre? Do the people living in Belconnen think it is important to preserve the current building height restrictions? Do we all understand the implications of losing open spaces in other suburbs?
My first reference is to past strategic plans. The National Capital Development Commission was established in 1957 when it became evident that Walter Burley Griffin's plan for the national capital, which foresaw a population of only 75,000 people, was not going to bear the pressures of a growing urban centre. The NCDC produced its first outline plan, with a projection to include a population of a quarter of a million - a little less than the current population. The 1970s saw the Y-plan, which has been modified by successive national capital plans. In 1984 the Metropolitan Canberra Policy and Development Plan was published with these stated purposes:
describe the background of the existing Metropolitan, or Y plan;
describe the existing land use structure of the city and the location of key activities;
prepare forecasts of future growth and change;
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .