Page 511 - Week 02 - Thursday, 25 February 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I am less inclined to refer to the vision of Walter Burley Griffin, whose original plan, after all, has been modified to suit the changing needs of the people who have come to live here and to suit the changing nature and function of the national capital. I am certainly not as enthusiastic about the Territory Planning Authority's ideas, which claim in the Territory Plan that the goals of the city "carry on the vision of Walter Burley Griffin and our founders into the twenty-first century". While acknowledging the wonderful contribution Walter Burley Griffin and his wife, Marion, made to Canberra and the contributions of the subsequent planning authorities, it is time to take stock of what we have, look at where we want to go, assess our resources and needs at this time, and plan for the future.
The report starts that process by taking up the potential changes that are likely to affect the ACT in the future. I feel that this section aims to put into context those issues that may modify future patterns of employment, settlement and provision of services. However, I feel that some of the underlying assumptions which informed this section are not fully fleshed out. For example, greater explanation needs to be given of the term "social behaviours". I do not believe that this term has a common understanding. What is the nature of change that is envisaged by the impact of computers on teaching? If this refers to some idea of replacing teachers with computers and television monitors, I would oppose the idea. Computers are tools and are no substitute for teachers. Terms such as "non-invasive surgery" need some clarification to ensure that we are all speaking about the same things. Similarly, the measures used as exemplars for environmental management, such as polluter pays, pricing structures for resources, carbon taxes, et cetera, need further definition and clarification as the process goes on, to ensure that all involved in the process, including the community at large, understand these concepts and can comment on the ideas and philosophical basis of our future vision.
Many of the statements seem to imply future policy directions. An example of this is the discussion of changing demographics leading to smaller school populations affecting the future location of schools and the location and mix of the provision of health services. What appears to be happening here is a subtle shift from determining what sort of Canberra we want in 2020 to looking at what demographics may dictate. The whole concept of forming a vision for Canberra in the future is not about making judgments on the basis of demographics alone but about looking at what the people of Canberra want in the way of a future for their city. The emphasis must be placed on looking at the demographics and then making a judgment about what we want to provide for the future students and community members who use these facilities, in this instance. I hope that the issues papers will correct this perceived shift in emphasis and will achieve a balance between models based on the demographics and an attempt to direct the debate.
The major part of the study report addresses approaches to education, health, social justice, law and justice, the environment, economic and employment development and financial issues. However, while some of the subsections in this part of the report address the issue of what Canberra will be like in 2020 with an open and objective tone, some subsections are more prescriptive. For example, it is categorically stated and emphasised that a system of government and non-government schooling will continue. Surely, looking towards 2020, we need to assess whether this is practical or desired or whether increased amalgamation of the government and non-government school systems is a preferable way to proceed.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .