The States provide much of the infrastructure with some assistance from the Commonwealth, constructing public buildings such as schools hospitals and public housing.

Local government is generally left with the task of either approving or rejecting development proposals and subdivision plans when the private sector though institutions such as banks, business and people invest and develop in our cities and towns. And then there is the community; their desires and preferences expressed in the way they vote, letters they write and even graffiti, and even their role in creating and using the urban environment.

These descriptions are so simple as to be nearly inaccurate. They do not reflect the reality of the chequered responsibility for urban planning as well as the many other ways the government decisions impact on urban planning and the way urban planning impacts on government goals. The broader concerns of government and urban issues intercept in endless ways from greenhouse targets, taxation, to education and science policy.

Another way to describe the role of government in urban planning would be to say that the words 'green, culturally sensitive and community consultation' were very big for a while there in the 1980s. In the 1990s they seem to have been replaced by the words competition, fast talking, and State vs. Federal. Local governments have been relegated to shutting up and doing the paperwork.

Urban design links environment, economic, and government issues in a very concrete way. Australia's concentrated urbanisation has had a significant impact on our quality of life and the economic and social sustainability of our communities. Unchecked urban sprawl, high transport costs and environmental pollution all reflect badly on urban development. There is little doubt that Australia's major cities are becoming crowded and more difficult to manage, often to the detriment of living standards and the environment and with congested transportation.

An economy with better structured and developed towns and cities will be more cohesive and competitive. On a national level, the economic and social returns from a reduction of costs arising from more livable cities will be immense. And government definitely has a role in this.

The Democrats have long called for a national urban sewage and storm water improvement programme, a programme to upgrade urban public transport, a river repair and rural waste water management scheme, an extension of the local public works programme, and a large regional environmental employment program. These sort of schemes create jobs in local communities as well as address major social and environmental problems.

Our government does not seem to believe job creation is the business of government; that we are to leave it up to the market to determine the level of human capital needed.

Good government is about:

• effective democracy and efficient social planning,
• giving appropriate powers to the various levels of government,
• protecting the poor and powerless, and
• conserving the environment.

I believe that the republican debate should be widened to encompass these issues of governance, although presently we are witnessing a ridiculous narrowing of the debate about the Republic. (If it gets any narrower it's going to be about what we are going to call the Commonwealth cars in the new millennium).

Now you might argue the Republic debate is a long way from discussions of Urban issues. But it's not. The republic debate is about the form of government we have in this country. And the form of government is connected in a multitude of ways to how we develop our urban landscape.

There is a need for a full public debate about the roles of government, at all levels, in representing, maintaining and protecting the public interest. A broad discussion is also required about the need for balance of powers between various levels of government.

One hundred years down the track from Federation, it is time to have a close look at our three tiers of government, to look at areas of duplication and waste, to ask more broadly; "what is the best approach to responsible and accurate government?", instead of making decisions case by case according to private sector interests and swayed only by short term economic benefits.

There is a disturbing trend for relations between different levels of government to be dominantly competitive rather then cooperative. The recent Andrews Bill has been the most recent and obvious example of bigger government riding rough shod over decisions by governments who are closer and more accountable to their community.

Effective inter government processes should be about effective inter government processes at all levels of government.

Local In the last few years local governments have been dismantled, bullied, restructured and amalgamated, most of it in the name of economic reform and particularly competition policy. In practise, this has taken power over planning, as well as other areas, away from local government.

For example, Victoria has been the home of some bad planning decisions which disregard community's environmental and health concerns and change into inappropriate developments. Bad planning practise is closely related to the Victorian State Government interference in the planning and economic affairs of local councils.

Local government is by no means perfect, and in the area of planning we see local government deliver both it's best and worst performances. There are some incredibly bad planning decisions by some local government bodies. But as a general guide, the government level closet to the community should be making the decisions about what the community looks like This doesn't mean local governments, or any level of government should always get their own way, no questions asked. There should be plenty of room to appeal their decision and in my view there should always be a role for the Commonwealth government in protecting areas of national or international environmental signifigance. there will be times when national interest overrides local interests and we need to develop processes to deal with these situations of conflict which are clear, accessible and accountable.

Increasingly, the short term economic interests of particular groups are being dressed up as national interests and used to override environmental and health concerns of communities and to ignore principals of social justice. Rights of objection protect and appeal, fly on the window and 'fast tracking' and 'cutting red tape' become euphemisms for cutting out the community, doing favours for your mates, and trampling on proper process, and in some cases, basic domestic rights.

I'd like to discuss a contemporary case in regard to telecommunications, or as it has been described, 'cabling chaos'.

If we hold up current telecommunications regulations against the test of good government; 'democracy, efficient social planning, protecting the poor and powerless, conserving the environment', then our Telecommunications infrastructure regulatory system has some fairy major holes. The recent report which led to the Telecommunications Bill in the senate was a case study in how NOT to conduct appropriate community consultation.

The inquiry was advertised just prior to Christmas and submissions required mid January 1997. Not a good time to advertise an enquiry or formulate a submission !

The 11 bills run to hundreds of pages and are available only at a cost (unless one has access to the internet).

Public hearings were only held in Canberra

The public was informed that submissions had to make specific legislative amendments to the Bills. Failure to do so was said to result in the submission either being ignored or given less weight. (This is a virtually unheard of criterion for Senate inquiries).

There were entirely unnecessary procedural restrictions, intended presumably to discourage submissions from anyone except the carriers; big guys with colourful letterheads, who have significant resources at their disposal, including teams of lawyers. However, most consumer, environment, residential and consumer groups lack access to financial or legal resources and are often staffed by volunteers. For these groups the challenge of having to work though hundreds of pages of proposed registration in a few weeks over Christmas and then to provide specific amendments, should not be under- estimated.

Lobbying government should not be solely determined by financial acumen; the ability to afford research, lobbyist and advertising. The merit of your argument should count for something too. Members of the community should have been encouraged to comment as they saw fit.

I am very interested in any process that makes it easier for the community to have a say. In response to the government¼s decision to charge for timed calls on the Net ,users have set up an electronic petition. In an historic move the clerk has told me that I can take the petition if the president agrees. So, I have always encouraged alternative methods of consultation such as setting outlines to take peoples concerns on major policy proposals.

It is wrong to just seek comments designed to support the implementation of Government policies, and ignore problems that are inevitably going to arise down the track. Problems like:
Inefficient research use, bad planning design increased social inequities, over riding state and local environmental legislation. and the concerns of local communities in regard to electromagnet towers and cables in the street.

These sort of problems do not go away just by locking people out of the consultation process.

New Telecommunications Regime.

As of 1 July 1997 there will be a new regulatory regime governing the telecommunications industry, which will significantly alter the way in which the telecommunication infrastructure is regulated. Government policy since 1991 has encouraged competition in the telecommunications industry and granted telecommunications carriers immunity from State and territory planning and environmental laws. This was a combined effort of the ALP Government with Liberal and National support and opposed by the democrats.

It has been disastrous.

We have seen the unnecessary duplication of two broadband cable roll outs, of three digital mobile phone networks and the building of mobile phone towers on sensitive sites. This has led to innumerable protests and legal action around this country.

Duplication of telecommunications infrastructure makes no economic sense, since the same service can be provided with a single network at about half the cost. It means consumers must pay far more then they would otherwise need to. Further, since the two competing companies have focused on serving the same areas in a few major cities, adequate services to rural and regional Australia are not being provided.

One of the major problems is competition policy.

It has been built from the Telecommunications Act 1991's framework for competition. The 1995 Competition Policy Reform Bill has carried it on.

Competition should neither be seen as a goal in itself nor a good in itself, but rather a means to an end. Competition is not always appropriate. It does not always lead to socially optimal outcomes. Facilities-based competition in the field of telecommunications is a case in point.

This has led to various undesirable outcomes.

1. The roll out has been focused on urban, high density areas where competition is greatest. This has meant that coverage is less then it might otherwise have been. A single network across Australia rather then three separate networks in urban areas would have been substantially more efficient and presumably cheaper. Rural and regional Australia has once again been left out.

2. (Social inequity). Competition does not benefit all customers because new market entrants are only likely to compete at the lucrative end of the market. Certain residential customers, disabled persons, those in rural or remote areas etc, are unlikely to benefit from competition in the way large business customers will, or those in high density urban centres.

3. Residents and local communities are concerned that carriers erecting mobile phone towers are granted immunity from State and Local planning and environment regulations. Carriers erect towers with little regard for consultation or concerns of residents causing innumerable protests around the country, legal actions, court cases etc. Many of these problems could have been avoided if a single network had been built. with due regard to planning regulations, and environmental and health concerns.

There are also health concerns to be considered

NTeither the carriers nor the government have been genuinely willing to accept that there may be a public health issue in relation to the siting of mobile phone towers or bases. This is in spite of research which shows that chronic exposure to levels of radio frequency / microwave radiation, much lower than the current standards, can affect cell biography.

FTor this reason the Democrats have been particularly concerned about the construction of towers near schools,. hospitals or child care centres. Senator Lyn Allison moved an amendment which would have prevented the construction of mobile phone towers within 200 of metres these facilities. This amendment was opposed by both the government and the ALP.

STtate and Territory Governments will have to wait until 1 January 1998 before they can set their own rules on this. In the meantime, tower construction will continue to be immune from State and Territory environment and planning laws.

Despite repeated Government promises to implement proper planning processes for the roll out of telecommunications infrastructure from 1 July 1997, the Government has been able to delay the introduction of the new regime.

So Aerial cabling will continue with immunity from State and Territory environment and planning laws until 30 September 1997. All other activities, such as installation of mobile phone towers will have immunity from State and Territory environment and planning laws until 31 December 1997.

Senator Alston, the minister for communications, openly admitted that the purpose of this is to give carriers sufficient time to complete an aerial cable role out of Adelaide, with total immunity from State environment and planning laws.

So this telecommunications business is an astonishing situation from almost every aspect you care to name: environment, state rights, urban planning, community consultation. Ignoring the local community and over riding planning laws in order to maximise private returns are likely (unfortunately) to become an increasing component of urban development in Australia.

It's not appropriate for environmental standards to be ignored because the government wants to promote competition policy in a high tech industry. That¼s not my idea of fair competition and accountable government.

Public Space and young people.

IT want to finish by speaking a little bit about urban planning and young people.

ITn regard to their use of public space, young people always seem to be portrayed as a problem. Whether it's graffiti, gangs skate boarding or just hanging around, it is often "how can we stop them doing this in our neighbourhood"?

It should be appreciated that young people need to be able to access public space. A place they can go, that they can get to, and where they do not need to spend money to be there. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that young people spend time in retail centres, train stations, public squares, parks, beaches and various other public spaces.

Unfortunately, governments often try and deal with this issue though 'move on' laws, 'sweep' operations and curfews; legislation banning everything from graffiti, skate boarding, wearing caps backwards, to just standing around in a group of more than three people. There are many problems with the 'move them on' approach, not least that of equity. Young people are members of the public so who is public space for ?

At best, this just relocates a problem without addressing it's cause; a lack of appropriate facilities accessible to young people. It also tends to be seen as a security issue; to be handled with video cameras, locked gates, police and security staff.

If young people were consulted about planning decisions and appropriate social impact assessments were conducted then problems down the development track could be avoided. Consultation with the community is always important but for young people in particular, urban planners need to make an effort to get their views and their needs for appropriate facilities should be considered when development applications are seeking approval.

Young people are not likely to make submissions to public inquires, so there needs to be other ways for their voices to be heard. You may need to go to them by setting up a table in a public place and conducting research. Social Impact Assessment Procedures could be done that way, or by holding competitions for design of public space to see the sort of facilities young people would like.

You will be amazed how responsive young people are if you ask their opinion, partly because it's so rare their opinion is asked.

When it comes to government, consultation and urban planning, much the same principals apply to young people as any member of the community. Government and urban planners need to remember that young people are at least as important as competition, development and big business. If you ask people what they want, and make it possible for them to tell you, you are less likely to end up in a fight later.

Return to speakers list