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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 1 Hansard (19 February) . . Page.. 221 ..

MS DUNDAS (continuing):

This debate has highlighted the scarce nature of the information and education that the government has been providing to the people of Gungahlin. The planned changes in traffic conditions with the completion of Anthony Rolfe Avenue and the programmed release of blocks with an active edge to promote continued commercial growth are poorly understood by residents. This deficiency in communication spotlights the lack of input the Gungahlin community have to the future shape and form of their town centre. The government will say that there has been ongoing consultation, but there is still so much misinformation in the community. How effective has this consultation been?

Gungahlin has had a much slower and more drawn out development that our other town centres. Whilst Belconnen, Woden and Tuggeranong had high-intensity building phases over a short period, Gungahlin has been on our maps for 10 years and only a quarter of the original planned area has been developed. In addition, the refusal of both federal and territory governments to locate significant employment opportunities in the Gungahlin Town Centre has hampered its development.

This significantly different pattern of development for Gungahlin and major changes in planning ideas since other town centres were developed mean that the significance of community input and information is now more important than ever. The slower development of the town centre and the changing demographics of the area mean that the initial consultations have quickly become dated and there is a need to initiate a new process that can incorporate the unique characteristics of the area as it now stands.

The government has initiated a new neighbourhood planning process for high development areas in the city centre, but no such attention has been extended to the future shape of Gungahlin. These questions were raised at the beginning of the neighbourhood planning process. Why not take the neighbourhood planning process to an area which was being planned and developed and would benefit greatly from the government's ideals about people being involved in planning? A new consultation process should incorporate ongoing consultation into its structure and not be a stop and start system.

This debate also represents a wider malaise with the planning process whereby resident groups continue to bemoan the lack of meaningful dialogue between the government and those affected by the planning process. Community consultation is not a formality that governments can scuttle through before making a preplanned decision. Consultation is and should be about giving communities an informed and educated voice in the decision-making process.

It is not the job of a planning system only to have input from professional planners. Planning for Gungahlin and the rest of the city is about trying to turn the needs and desires of the people of the community into a vision for the future of their community. The process should not be a top-down approach whereby governments or bureaucracies tell people what is good for them. Instead, it should be a collaboration between government and Gungahlin residents to tap into grassroots ideas and develop them through a fair and balanced planning process.

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