Page 1049 - Week 04 - Thursday, 1 April 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
This has led to the situation where two papers - "Education and Training" and "Infrastructure Development" - assume a population of 516,500. "Urban Form" and "Economic Development and Employment" use 540,000. Five other reports use general terms such as "population growth" and point to an increase in the number of people over 65. "Housing" uses its own measure, preferring to talk about households but not about the size of those households. The difference in the figures, where actual figures are used, is not insignificant. The two scenarios are some 33,500 people apart. This is a lot of people - more than three West Belconnens or 11 North Watson proposals. This is not a small discrepancy in the figures. I am sure, however, that the Government is aware of these discrepancies and that the Chief Minister will have something constructive to say about how this has been addressed for the reference group's consideration of the issues papers.
Before leaving the issue of demographics I would like to raise another matter. The base and medium scenarios outlined as attachment No. 1 of the demographic background paper both use an unemployment level of 8 per cent. This is despite the fact that we have one scenario which claims to be either "business as usual" or "a boom economy". In my estimation of the statistics, and here I must admit reliance on the ACT's statistical summaries, while unemployment has climbed in recent years, the highest monthly unemployment rate in the past 10 years has been just over 8 per cent, while annual averages tend to be between 5.5 and 6.5 per cent, and some have been as low as 5 per cent. I will be interested to hear the Government's response to the fact that its officers appear to be quite comfortable with a relatively large number of ACT residents out of work in the long term, and that they feel that this will continue to be the case regardless of whether the economy is booming or in decline. The Government needs to make clear to the people of Canberra what basis there is for arguing an average unemployment rate of 8 per cent over 30 years.
I would like to point out that many of the issues papers appear to do a fair job of considering the future. In particular, the "Economic Development and Employment" issues paper has a very readable methodology for examining the issues. It begins with a fairly obvious "Where are we coming from?", asks next "Where should we be going?", and then looks at the influences which may affect us in getting there. It concludes the paper with a discussion of future choices. The main strength of this paper is that it raises issues and starts discussion. Indeed, that is the purpose of this part of the exercise. The "Social Justice Perspective" also very clearly sets out its interpretation of the present, the key issues and the possible scenarios in a way which is approachable, if a bit prescriptive. The "Urban Infrastructure" paper was also one of the better papers in the way that it approached the study; but I feel that it, too, suffered from being too prescriptive in its assessment of Canberra in the year 2020. The paper on "Finance and the Economy", while not being directional in its headings, also raises the main issues involved in the economy and invites discussion, and I found the "Key Global and Local Trends and Issues" paper informative.
Some the issues papers, however, disappointed by putting current technology forward as the 2020 vision. In particular, the "Law and Justice" paper put forward a list of six statements which represented its vision, and then proceeded to outline how they would be achieved. While I recognise that there may be a 30-year time-lag in the court system catching up with current technology because of budgetary constraints, I do not see the adoption of computerisation and video
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .