Page 513 - Week 02 - Thursday, 25 February 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
anticipate having a bedroom of their own, and it appears that most parents aspire to that level of space provision. We have also seen the relatively recent phenomenon of family areas and formal areas, with separate dining and living spaces provided for families' use and visitors' entertainment. We often have rooms set aside for people's home offices and computers.
Is it necessarily correct that declining household size will lead to the need for less household space; or are there needs and wants that are satisfied by larger living spaces? What sort of analysis do we need to determine what sort of housing mix will satisfy future demand? Again, we are talking about what the community will fund through the Government's revenue base and what type of lifestyle Canberrans will want in the future. If infrastructure is proving very expensive to provide at the fringe, and the Industry Commission report appears to cast doubt on that assumption, are there other alternatives or other measures the community can consider as alternatives? To say no to this proposition also ignores the spirit of the exercise in dictating what level of services the community must have and in what way they will be provided. If technology is to have such an impact on other areas, such as education, why does it not affect housing?
Likewise, there are some facts ignored in the area of alternative housing models. The study talks of future housing being designed for maximum energy efficiency. That is not a goal for 2020; that is, hopefully, a goal for the next two to three years and, since the first report was published in 1977, should have been a priority much earlier. The study also talks about potential problems of inadequate housing or homelessness. Again, I suggest that these are current problems and do not play a role in a future vision 30 years away. The solutions should be actively pursued now, so that by 2020 we do indeed have a socially just society.
Health seemed more open about the way we will incorporate the changes it sees as occurring in the next 30 years. The debate over allocation of resources is not hard to predict. Health puts forward that view without comment, other than to predict an increase in the need for preventative health care. Social justice is another section of the report which appears to be more philosophical than prescriptive, starting as it does with a philosophical statement of the goal for social justice. As a generalised statement it is positive, and I hope that the specifics which the community identifies as being important are given as much weight. Unfortunately, in my estimation, law and justice seems to lose relevance to the topic "Canberra in the Year 2020". As with housing, some of the issues raised are current and definitely need action before 2020.
Environment as a section starts off with a fundamental goal which may come into conflict with the development arm of government, and it should recognise this factor in setting its goals. Here there appears to be a problem with identifying goals as against influencing factors. While global concerns, technology, population growth, and community attitudes are factors influencing policy, surely it is a goal to improve energy efficiency and sustain acceptable levels of air and water quality, while allowing economic development and reducing reliance on motor vehicles. I found it curious that community attitudes on domestic pets was an important factor but the community's attitudes towards environmental issues did not rate a mention, nor did their attitudes on sustainable development. I feel that the above illustrates a certain rushed attitude to the preparation of this report, and I hope that in the remaining three stages more consideration will be given to making the discussion more cohesive and relevant to the topic.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .