At the best of times the theory that the Government knows best is treated with a fair degree of scepticism. Government now is getting so large that instead of being an impartial proponent of the public good, it has become a force of its own and acts for its own good first, against the best interests of the whole population.
The challenge to “”government knows best” has been mounting in the ACT as the Government pursues is 50-50 in-fill to greenfields policy. It culminated in a public rally on Sunday which expressed anger, determination, and thoughtful opposition.
As the next election draws closer, individual ACT politicians are going to have to be a bit more careful about branding opponents of the 50-50 policy as simplistic, ignorant and selfish. Indeed, the calibre of the challenge is such that it might be the Government that is seen by the public as simplistic, ignorant and selfish.
Let’s take simplistic first. The Government says in-fill and renewal is more energy efficient. Expert evidence to the Industry Commission suggests to the contrary. Former NCDC planner Ian Morrison put a cogent case to the weekend rally that prematurely knocking down parts of central Canberra in the name of higher density might cost more energy than it saves. He said there was precious little evidence that people in higher density places were more likely to use public transport anyway.
Even if the Government did increase bus use through its in-fill program, it would most likely be at peak times, thereby further increasing ACTION operating losses because a larger peak-fleet would be idle in down-times.
He called for the abandonment of the centralised city model and called for the strengthening of Canberra’s districts which prevented the peak-hour into-the-centre-and-out-again crush of other cities.
Let’s take ignorance and selfishness. The president of the Conservation Council, Jacqui Rees, pointed out at the rally that the ACT Government when asked simply could not provide costings related to North Watson. Nor could it provide details of costs about relocating Mount Stromlo observatory should the lights of the proposed Duffy-Holder re-development make it necessary.
When a figure of $40 million to $50 million was publicised by the residents’ group the administration denounced it as an unhelpful exaggeration. The messenger (because it was a community group) got slammed. In fact the figure came from the horse’s mouth: the acting director of Mount Stromlo. Small wonder the Government said later it did not know. Ms Rees pointed out that these decisions were made in the name of economy and efficiency yet the government had not done its financial homework.
She told the rally, “”It is not exaggeration to feel the shadows of Western Australia, Victoria and South Australia in a situation where decision makers obsessed with a development mentality have been too cavalier by half about doing their sums.”
She condemned governmental ignorance about the historic significance of Tuggeranong homestead and the scientific significance of work at Stromlo. Historian Charles Bean wrote the first five volumes of the official history of World War I at the homestead now being surrounded by in-fill.
She said that far from exploiting Japanese interest in the international-quality work at Stromlo to bring international attention and respect “”we are instead concentrating on staging a chrysanthemum festival down near the casino in Glebe Park to attract Japanese gamblers”.
And lastly to selfishness. Professor Max Neutze, professor in the urban-research program at ANU, gave a history of the misuse of the leasehold system in Canberra. He said the potential for the leasehold system to provide good planning and revenue were poorly understood. Canberra’s land was of immense local and national value.
“”Unless we are vigilant those assets will be frittered away under pressure from those who can profit from their erosion,” he said.
Politically it is hard to see how this will pan out in the ACT. The hostility to the in-fill program could result in some odd political alliances. Labor’s social-justice policies usually attract many of the people who are now opposing the pro-developer outcomes in the way in-fill is being done. And there are some more socially conservative people (with their eye on the rates bill) who do not like the “”erosion” referred to by Professor Neutze.