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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 10 Hansard (28 August) . . Page.. 2940 ..

MRS DUNNE (continuing):

The land act, which I have just alluded to, is shot through with unintended consequences. I submit that draft variation 200, what we know of it, is similarly flawed. On the intention level, the government is setting out to protect the amenity of many of our older areas, and that is entirely laudable. But if we look closely at what is intended and what is proposed-I spoke about Red Hill in this place last week as a case in point-we see that amenity protection by this method is not only not assured but actively threatened.

Mr Smyth and I requested from PALM a set of maps that set out the impact of draft variation 200 on every suburb in Canberra. We do not have a complete set of maps. I alluded to them in this place last week. I hope the minister has studied them. I make an offer to members. The maps are in the lobby now if members would like to have a look at some of the unintended consequences in places like Downer, Stirling and many other suburbs. I think you should do it.

Draft variation 200 does appear to work in many suburbs. It works in Yarralumla. That map was published in the paper. It works in Griffith, but it does not work in Red Hill. It works in Weetangera, but it does not work in Spence. We have to look at the unintended consequences to see what will happen.

Random lines drawn on maps, even with the very best intentions, do not make for good policy. We saw in the 19th century the havoc created for generations to come in many parts of the world by drawing random lines on maps. We saw world wars; we saw the carnage of Africa; we saw Rwanda. That might seem to be hyperbole, but although not to the same extent we will make the same mistakes if we just draw lines, if we just have formulae to go through.

Let us not fall into the trap of making arbitrary policy on the run and to hell with the consequences. This is not a case of "never mind the quality, feel the length". This is a time when we make considered policy. We do not want to burden future generations of this wonderful city with hasty and ill-considered policies, do we? I think not. We have an opportunity to get it right, so let us get it right.

Wrapped in the fuzzy warmth of the cosy rhetoric of draft variation 200, are we sounding the death knell of truly sustainable development in this city? There are grave concerns about whether draft variation 200 is sustainable. It does not guarantee residential redevelopment around shops. It has very strong implications about pushing people further to the outskirts because we spend perhaps too much effort protecting our inner suburbs.

Are we neglecting the very process of urban renaissance that the OECD picked up and commented on? I am afraid the government, despite its good intentions, is flying in the face of the OECD advice that came from Josef Konvitz, whom the minister brought here earlier this year and who identified the way forward in achieving sustainability as "helping each place, each urban place, to achieve its potential, not according to an abstract model, but rather according to an analysis of its specific strengths and weaknesses"? Are we heeding the advice? I do not believe we are.

The way we choose to go now-and let us be frank that we are at a planning crossroads-will determine the future shape and infrastructure of not only the ACT but our region as a whole. We have to get the balance right between planning for truly

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