Page 3479 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 21 September 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Lyons primary school, a small school threatened with closure more than once, was all over the front page of the Canberra Times recently for its bilingual English/Italian education program. That school has a wide mix of students from across the socio-economic spectrum. It has managed to deliver extraordinary educational outcomes to those students, due to an ethic of care, in part due to its size as well as the quality and commitment of the school staff and community and, it should be said, the support of the Italian government for its bilingual program. If the ACT government ensured a reasonable supply of mixed public and private housing on the site of the old Burnie Court, there could easily be more children moving into the area to become a part of that community.
There is a way that communities and government services can work together for mutual benefit, and the mechanisms of planning and of community involvement in that planning have an important part to play. In this context, I must say that the government’s planning system reform project is a concern because it is moving much faster than people in the community on whom it will impact are aware. There are many questions about the shift away from lease-purpose controls to broad-brush zoning, for example, that might well result in market-driven changes that are socially destructive and see us lose community involvement and control over our infrastructure and the location of our services. I have been working with the Greens and a range of community partners to explore these issues further over the next few months and perhaps open up a wider range in the exploration of the presumptions underpinning it.
This motion asks only for the government to make a commitment to support the viability of local shops and facilities and to ensure that such a concern is part of the brief for the review of variation 200 that is presently under way. I notice that the Minister for Planning’s amendment sidesteps the inclusion of these issues in the review of variation 200. That is disappointing.
When we think of a lively city, we need to realise that it is not just Civic that we are talking about. We see too much focus there, while we seem to be prepared to let our suburbs die. This reduces the quality of life for those people who are not so loud and noisy and their complaints are not heard. They are not the people who can get out or even want to get out and enjoy the city centre’s fleshpots, bars and cafes. There is more to life than this anyway. There is the casual encounter at the local supermarket where the proprietor addresses you by name. For some people, that could be the only human contact they have in a day. Take away that supermarket and their social interaction may be reduced to zero.
It is interesting that, while we in this city are talking about concerns about areas like west Belconnen and proposing a particular kind of school, we need to look at the broader issues related to that because this is also one area where local centres are under threat. Perhaps more than ever, those places need that concern. I note that Charnwood has a revived shopping centre and that it also has a much-revived primary school. We can see the community spirit there.
It is very hard to say which comes first. Does the community spirit come from having a viable suburban centre or does the community spirit create it? I think it is a cyclic process. I do not think we should say, “This is the trend that is happening; therefore, this is the way that planning must go.” Let us look at the work that has been done in New
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .