Page 232 - Week 01 - Thursday, 18 February 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The article contains a number of incorrect statements. The better cities program is not intended to fix up grotty inner suburbs. It is a Commonwealth initiative to fund proposals which are strategic in nature, overcome threshold barriers, use existing infrastructure more effectively, and promote efficient and environmentally sustainable development, which could not have occurred sooner without that Commonwealth support. Contrary to the report in that newspaper, the Commonwealth subjected the ACT's proposal for better cities funding to very detailed scrutiny. Had it not met the criteria, I am sure the proposal would not have been accepted. It has not been crafted, as claimed, in a way to meet better cities guidelines but not its intentions. That is a spurious claim.
I add that the better cities money is not being syphoned off, as has been claimed, to fund greenfields development and it is not going to be used to fund development in Gungahlin. Apparently the attempt is made to link sewerage works with Gungahlin development. The North Canberra trunk sewer will eventually extend into part of Gungahlin, but that extension will not proceed until the area is to be developed. The North Canberra trunk sewer improvements will be partly funded by only a very small portion of the better cities funding; but the sewer there is already inadequate and does need that new work. The improvements to the sewer will assist with the development of North Watson, if that proceeds, and I still say "if".
The article also claims that the North Watson proposal will allow the ACT bureaucracy to push for Monash Drive. Our Government has said that we will not construct Monash Drive, and I reject any assertions that the bureaucracy is attempting to undermine that decision. It will not happen. Indeed, a great number of North Canberra residents have expressed appreciation of the statement by the Chief Minister that Monash Drive would not go ahead. If we went back a couple of years to the debate on what might happen in that area of North Canberra, Monash Drive might have proceeded very close to the backyards of all these people. On the other side of that, we would have had caravan parks and motels rather than the locked gates and fences that we have at the moment.
Again, I point out that North Watson is not intended to be simply a high density housing area. It is planned to provide a range of housing types so that people will have a real choice. North Watson has been identified by the Government as an area where it is possible - we have not made any decision on this; we are examining the process - to achieve our aim to have 50 per cent of new housing starts other than in greenfields areas. We want to break down the very considerable expense of greenfields developments such as Gungahlin. It is an urban renewal area because it is served by existing infrastructure. There is an economic decision to make, and that infrastructure will be helpful, should it proceed.
The planning process has commenced with the release of a preliminary assessment, and a draft variation to the Territory Plan may well follow - it will not necessarily follow - our assessment of that work. There is public consultation at every stage and I welcome all comments. Those people who may be opposed to the development have a legitimate right to say what they want, but they do not really help their case if their comments are inaccurate. I hope that the submission from this group, which I will look at, is a little more accurate than the information I have seen so far.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .