Page 1559 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 12 August 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
start to grasp the nettle and see whether we cannot get a more dense population in a type of environment that is not incomparable with some of the finer cities in Europe. The answer will not be provided by simply knocking down existing buildings. We still need good urban planning, good architecture and compatible industries.
I was surprised by the lack of detail in Mr Lamont's speech. It was very similar to our debate yesterday, especially in relation to the time he took to deliver it. As Mr Kaine has already said, a new line of thinking from Labor and Mr Lamont is refreshing; but Mr Lamont obviously has some homework to do. We all are aware, I think, of the decrease in the average household. The population density of the inner suburbs, both north and south, needs to be increased. We have to develop some vacant areas, but maybe not all. We have to look at fuel consumption.
Something has already been said about the Kingston foreshores. I am sure that some very nice domestic units could be built on the areas now occupied by ACTION and ACTEW. After all, we have three or four other workshops in the ACT, and, for all intents and purposes, the Kingston workshop should have been closed down some time ago. I understand that ACTEW is ready to move their stores area to land that is available for them in Fyshwick. These are areas where the infrastructure exists and where we could develop. One has only to look at what that has done for the Causeway, where there are now permanent residences instead of the old prefab houses. The other morning at a launch the Chief Minister mentioned that another small business office, similar to the one in North Canberra, will be housed in Kingston. That might be a start; but it is certainly not a development, and it is not going to help our urban density.
Enough has been said about West Belconnen. Mr Wood raised the issue of private enterprise involvement. But, as I said, a program which was proposed by private enterprise eight or nine months ago still has not been given the green light. Therefore, are we to question the sincerity of the Government about wanting private enterprise involved? We have heard about the idea of half greenfield and half urban renewal; I can sympathise with that. Mr Moore mentioned the cost of people moving to the outer areas and having to provide transport. I do not particularly agree with the last matter, because the transport from outside Canberra is very well provided by private enterprise - Lever Coach Lines and Deanes bus lines - and I do not think that involves the ACT infrastructure. In general, Madam Speaker, if the Government is sincere and does what it says it will do, we believe that they are on the right track. It is refreshing to see that happening, and we wish them well in that respect.
MRS CARNELL (12.11): I rise to support strongly Mr Lamont's motion and the real need for a plan for urban infill or, shall we call it, an urban renewal strategy for Canberra. That brings up the word "strategy" and the real need for an urgent one. My colleagues have already spoken about Acton Peninsula, the Kingston foreshore, Gungahlin and West Belconnen; so I will not talk about them. I will talk about what is really happening in Canberra now, in the inner north, the inner south, some of the older Belconnen suburbs, those of inner Tuggeranong, and Weston Creek, for that matter. All of those areas were planned around the neighbourhood shopping centre and neighbourhood school concept. It was a very good concept, and it served Canberra very well as it grew very quickly from nothing.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .