Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 2 Hansard (20 February) . . Page.. 410 ..

MRS DUNNE (continuing):

Mr Speaker, I welcome that opportunity to participate, as I am sure all members on this side of the chamber do. But I am less sanguine about what is happening when I listen to Mr Corbell's exposition of state planning revisited. A strategic planning framework-with which, I am sure, we all agree-does not necessarily equate with the archaic paternalism of big brother that he is advocating. There are some very worrying signs emerging.

I readily acknowledge that there are problems with redevelopment and, more specifically, with dual occupancies. But what does Mr Corbell propose as a solution? In the grand Labor tradition of government by numbers-that is, when in doubt devise a formula-he has concocted an arbitrary figure of 5 per cent. He has a one-size-fits-all mentality, a dehumanising approach to planning. Clearly, in some places 5 per cent for dual occupancies is not enough, and in others it would be too much. Why is it 5 per cent? Perhaps, like the Chief Minister has said, he exercised his judgment-Simon says 5 per cent. It is not an idea that appeals to me, or many other members of the community, as workable. It smacks of rigidity and is part of the familiar and dreary side of state planning.

That is what Hugh Stretton warned about 30 years ago when he spoke about the danger of what he accurately termed "planned monotony". If we follow Mr Corbell's path, that is where we will end. A more appropriate option would be a strategic holistic approach that takes account of demographic projections of the way people want to live their lives and of the way buildings are designed in the 21st century.

Not many years ago we had a very staid inner city, back in the days when eating outdoor was verboten. Thanks to great buckers of the system like Gus Petersilka, we managed to get past those days and now have a vibrant inner city, with inner city life on the weekends, a cosmopolitan lifestyle, innovation and excitement. Those things have been brought about by a concerted effort to bring life into the CBD, to change the way we live, and most of them are a reflection of the policies and encouragement of the former Carnell/Humphries government.

Those changes would not have happened under state planning. Big brother in his state planning guise simply would not have allowed them to happen. The city changes, the people change, demographics change and expectations change. We deny this dynamic character when, as Mr Corbell proposes, we cast everything Moses-like in stone.

Let me give an example of what Mr Corbell proposes to do. On 14 February, Mr Corbell announced the establishment of a new planning task force to suggest operational designs for a range of government election initiatives. One might well ask what the Minister for Planning was doing in his last 31/2 years in opposition and why he is still coming up with the notion that he has to plan to implement his policies. That gives credence to the widespread notion in the community that this government is a bit like a dog which chased and caught a car: "I've got it, but how do I deal with it now that I've got it?"

Mr Corbell has stated in here that he was going to outline plans for establishing an independent planning authority. No-one has a particular problem with that. He has a mandate for that and he has the right to implement such a proposal if he can. I have a problem with its independence. Would it really be independent? In the same media statement the minister boasted that the task force to put forward the new planning

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .