Page 1535 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 12 August 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Madam Speaker, it is entirely up to us now to find a way of reversing this trend, which is already affecting the lives of people in Canberra. Of course, the options are simple. We can sit and do nothing, and continue developing the urban fringe, imposing at the same time further penalties on the ACT; we can stop greenfield developments and ignore the rest; or we can try to devise and implement an integrated solution aimed at correcting the current problems and at laying the foundations for a strategy which will maximise the use of the current infrastructure, considerably reduce capital and operating costs, and provide adequate protection to the environment. In addition to that, and at the same time, we can provide choice in the style of housing that is available to residents of Canberra.
Madam Speaker, we all know that this is not a new debate; these matters have been widely covered, as I said earlier. A number of studies have argued that the cost of low density fringe development has reached its break-even point and from now on the only viable course is to concentrate on developing existing areas. But the problem, Madam Speaker, does not stop here. We have now, as a consequence of implementing these policies over the years, a highly dispersed residential pattern which includes an ageing inner area population, as I have said; a car dependent city - a fact which has caused us to be branded with the dubious honour of having the second highest level of petrol consumption in Australia; and an excellent transport system, but one used by only a minority of our citizens.
It is very obvious, Madam Speaker, that at this pace we will be unable to play our part in helping Australia to reach the target of a 20 per cent reduction in greenhouse gases by the year 2005. In effect, at this rate we will actually be undermining Australia's commitment to the international treaty the Federal Government has signed. I do not have to remind members of the number of serious problems associated with this dependency - a high level of CO2 emissions, noise pollution, accidents and, of course, the enormous amount of fossil fuel energy used.
I have already mentioned the economics of maintaining an urban infrastructure over such a large area, but I want to mention some of the problems associated with the overconsumption of fuel, such as the air pollution and its devastating effects on the health of our citizens over the medium and long terms. Allow me, Madam Speaker, to be a bit more specific. It is a well-known fact that the major part of the headworks for already planned greenfield developments is now in place. As a result we will not achieve much in savings in this sector if we slow down the rate of settlement over, say, the next five years. Of course, this applies only for capital costs associated with sewerage, drainage, water and electricity. But in the future we can and should attempt to increase the number of households within the existing urban area. You may be asking yourself why. One of the reasons is that the existing infrastructure was designed to accommodate, as I have already said, a population much larger than the one currently in place, and further increases in the utilisation of such infrastructure would not attract additional cost. The bottom line is not only to obtain a more efficient utilisation of public infrastructure but also to rearrange the interconnection of several variables which, by working independently, are unproductive and expensive.
It is important to note, Madam Speaker, that there is a substantial demand for quality medium density accommodation in the inner areas of Canberra. That style of accommodation can fit and meet the needs of the full range of socioeconomic groups existing within our city. We also know, Madam Speaker,
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .