Page 461 - Week 02 - Thursday, 3 March 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Access Economics does add, at the bottom of page 8, that innovative solutions might be adopted and so forth. Of course, these will not come free, but they do not add into that an economic value. On one hand they say that it can be very expensive, and then they say that they do not come free, but they are not put in as part of the analysis. They also add, and I think this is very important, when talking about consumer choice matters at the end of 2.4:
Urban consolidation ought not be pursued as an end in itself, but as a means of widening consumer choices and ensuring that people have the opportunity to satisfy their needs for affordable housing, recognising that there can be some quite high financial and social costs in fringe greenfields development.
That is very interesting because, later on in the text, they also talk about the fact that developments such as North Watson, urban consolidation developments, can be very expensive. Our experience so far, if one were to look at North Lyneham, for example, which I think would be a good comparison, would indicate that we are not likely to find cheap housing in North Watson. On page 7 the study indicates, and I referred to this in relation to the executive summary, that it was not part of their brief to undertake a cost-benefit analysis of the North Canberra area strategy. It goes on in the third last paragraph on page 7 to say:
It is obvious that another 13,000 people in North Canberra will have implications for lifestyles, travel times, pressure on amenities, and so forth.
Mr Lamont: Thirteen thousand what?
MR MOORE: Mr Lamont interjects, "Thirteen thousand what?". I will read again from the text:
It is obvious that another 13,000 people in North Canberra will have implications for lifestyles, travel times, pressure on amenities, and so forth.
Mr Lamont: Yes, take them back to the good old days of 1967.
MR MOORE: Madam Speaker, the interjection of intolerance from Mr Lamont is one that clearly indicates that he is not prepared to take into account, if he has even read the report, what Access Economics have suggested, that is, that there are costs for people because of this development and one of those costs, not put into the budget, is who is going to pay. It is clear from this report, if we try to understand it, that those who are going to pay are those from North Canberra and Gungahlin. That is before we get on to betterment, which we will do in due time.
The report continues at page 7:
Third, we have not been concerned to try to estimate in any absolute sense the net costs and benefits arising under the North Watson proposal.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .