Page 1654 - Week 06 - Thursday, 20 May 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Planning Authority had done with each of the recommendations that came to them through those 1,000 submissions. We made a point of reviewing that to determine whether we believed that the authority's response was adequate. So every one of those 1,000 people who put their submissions to the Planning Authority, I believe, can be satisfied that their comments have been properly heard, properly weighted, and taken into account.
The committee invited anybody who felt that their comments and submissions had not been properly considered to come and restate their case to the committee, and there were a considerable number of people who did just that. I believe that there has been in this case a full and comprehensive community consultation process. Much of what is contained in this document, much of what appears in the large document on the green pages, has flowed from what people said to the committee. They said how they thought the plan was deficient in some respect, and we proceeded to amend the document. That was the document that came to us and this is the document we have produced as a result of our consideration of it.
There is no doubt, of course, that the document, when it is approved, will still not please everybody. Not all of those 1,000 people who made submissions, some of whom came before the committee again to express their views, will be satisfied with the outcome. It would be something of a major miracle, not just a minor miracle, if we could produce a document that was going to have such an impact on society that pleased everybody. It obviously will not.
The chairman has mentioned a couple of matters and I will reiterate them because they are important. I am sure that there will be people who have very strong views and who still will not accept the plan as satisfying their requirements. One of those matters is the question of whether or not the document is a strategic document. Some of us on the committee believe that it still is not, that looking only to the year 2005 or 2010 is not a sufficiently deep look into the future, that all it does is recognise today's world. We know from where we can see into the future now that our population will soon reach 400,000, and this document caters for a population of only 400,000. It says nothing about what happens beyond then. It is one of the reasons why, as the chairman said, we asked to have included in the document something about the regional context in which the city of Canberra is developing. But it still is not a strategic document. We have the 2020 study and other studies going on and, hopefully, out of those will come a proper strategic look at where the city of Canberra is going.
The only other point I want to mention is this question of energy efficiency ratings. I believe that that is going to be a controversial issue. Our wording here is quite explicit, and the chairman has mentioned it. We are imposing on the Government the responsibility to examine this matter thoroughly and at the end of a proper process to legislate, to do whatever they deem is necessary and feasible after a proper process has been gone through. It is easy to say that, on a five-star scale, every house built in Canberra in the future should comply with a four-star rating; but actually to achieve it physically will have some adverse consequences, I believe. One of the things it will mean is that even the most basic house will have to cost more. If you make it match a four-star rating on a five-star scale, the price compared to today has to be greater, and people in the first home buyers market may not be able to pick up that extra cost. It is a very contentious issue. It is a great ideal, but whether we can get to it in the foreseeable future remains to be seen.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .