Page 1558 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 12 August 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
of some of the bad work that was done in the 1960s and 1970s. There are alternatives, Madam Speaker. Urban renewal can be done in a manner which is aesthetically and environmentally sensitive and which allows the rejuvenation of some of the existing inner urban facilities.
One of the major debates in this place in the last two years was the issue of the smaller schools in the older areas of Canberra. The debate continues. As a party we decided that we want to keep those smaller schools. That was a controversial decision but one that was supported quite vigorously by Mr Moore and, I am sure, Ms Szuty. A lot of those smaller schools will be viable in the longer term only if they have a continued feeder base of children, and urban renewal offers that opportunity. We do not have to bulldoze street after street of buildings and replace them with the six-pack block of flats. We would share Ms Szuty's horror at that prospect. But sensitive redesign can be aesthetically and environmentally pleasing.
I urge members to look at some of the work that the Housing Trust is doing, with aged persons units in particular. Mr Kaine said, "Don't knock down old buildings". In some areas we do not; we keep the old building closest to the road and redevelop, in an architecturally similar manner, through the back into another block. In Ainslie we are finishing a project which is turning six run-down, small Housing Trust units into 20-odd townhouses and aged persons units, accommodating a mix of age groups and social groups in a manner that is aesthetically and environmentally pleasing. It can be done right, Madam Speaker.
MR WESTENDE (12.05): I am glad to say that this side of the house is always in favour of ensuring the future economic development of this fine city. I think we at least have agreement on both sides of the house that this is a fine city and that we should keep it that way. There is no question that urban sprawl is causing considerable environmental, social and economic difficulties. We need to be focusing on a better city as a matter of high priority. We have allowed cities in Australia to grow without taking stock of the long-term cost economically and socially. We have only to look at Melbourne and Sydney, where we have allowed the sprawl to continue. We would have been far better off developing new cities, such as Canberra, instead of letting those cities grow to having populations of three and four million.
It has probably grown out of the lucky country syndrome; we have tended to expect our quarter-acre blocks and a high degree of infrastructure support and public services. But I think the time has come to look at new lifestyles. Does this mean a compromise in standards? I do not think so. It can mean improvement. We can overcome the social problems that occur in the far-flung suburbs. We can provide more choice of housing. We can see better development of parkland. We can reduce the use of motor vehicles. We can have our workplaces close to where we live. We can vastly improve pollution control.
We can achieve improvements of this sort by adopting a change in policy. Projects like the proposed urban village at Gungahlin provide Canberra with an excellent opportunity to implement a model of urban planning. The Government would have an opportunity to grasp the nettle. I am rather surprised that a proposed joint venture between the Government and private enterprise, which I understand has been on the books for at least eight or nine months, has yet to receive government approval. Surely this would be one area in which one could
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .