Page 4068 - Week 15 - Thursday, 17 December 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
If there is one aspect of the variation that I did take exception to, it is the fact that areas A and D were not included in the variation. The area originally defined was much larger than that which we have now agreed should proceed under this variation. In fact, two-thirds of the area that was originally considered has essentially been removed from consideration for the time being - and I hope that it is only for the time being. I think that, in the long-term interests of the community and in the interests of the availability of land, access to facilities and the like areas A and D will be reconsidered in the near future.
Ms Szuty's disallowance motion really rests on the fact that she believes that the existing residents of West Belconnen are somehow going to be disadvantaged, that they are going to have taken away something to which they have an irrevocable and immutable right, by this land being developed nearby. That is an expression of something that I find disconcerting about Canberrans - a selfishness that says, "What I have should not be made available to others. I have an immutable right to enjoy what exists today. Nobody else is entitled to have any access to that and, if that means that people have to go and live at Yass instead of living in West Belconnen, so be it". There is an innate self-interest in that that I find difficult to accept. To assert that others should not enjoy the same facilities that people currently living in West Belconnen enjoy is a premise that I find difficult to accept.
You see this attitude throughout the length and breadth of the Territory. I suspect that the Minister, with his declared intention to provide 50 per cent of residential needs over the next few years from urban consolidation, urban infill, urban redevelopment - whatever you like to call it - is going to meet considerable resistance. I very much doubt that he is going to be able to achieve it, because every time the Minister identifies a piece of ground that he wants to use to increase the density of the population while using the infrastructure that exists already, rather than creating new infrastructure further out, a group will ring up and say, "No, you cannot do it here. By all means go and do it some place else, but not here".
That is a sad reflection on our community. It is one of the divisive elements in our community - and there are not many. People are not prepared to share with anybody else the amenity that they enjoy. As I said, I find that difficult to cope with. What Ms Szuty is putting forward now as the basis for her disallowance motion is just that.
People living on the outskirts of town have some green space that is nice to look at, but it cannot be left to sit there unused. In the community interest it cannot be left that way. The population continues to expand. We are told that the Government, whether Ms Follett's Government or mine or somebody else's, over the next 10 to 15 years will have to produce of the order of 3,000 new residential locations a year. I submit that that is the minimum. The number is going to increase over that period of time and, at the end of the time, we are probably going to be looking to produce 4,000 a year.
Where are we going to produce them? If we cannot use the land and resources that are available to us, are we going to build out further until we get to Yass, further until we get to Goulburn, further until we get to Cooma or Bungendore? There have to be some limitations on how far we are prepared to go in creating new infrastructure and opening up greenfield developments. To that extent,
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .