As vice-president of our great P&C, I was really proud to join president Jolene Laverty in presenting a donation of $10,000 to the Southern Cross Early Childhood School:
 |
 |
Author: Kim Fischer (Page 5 of 10)
Every day we are surrounded by symbols. Some symbols are nearly universally recognised, like the marriage ring, the Jewish star and the peace sign. The strongest symbols and brands also have what marketing types call “imbued meaning”: the ability for people to infer values just by seeing the brand image associated with a product or service. When you see the Nike ‘swoosh’ or the Mercedes-Benz logo, you make automatic positive and negative judgements about that product.
Cities, states, and territories now get branded as well. New South Wales is “making it happen”. Victoria has the “best of everything”. Canberra, of course, has Brand CBR and our “Confident. Bold. Ready.” slogan.
Branding and marketing have been around for a long time, right back to the busts of emperors in Roman times. Way before the concept of a trademark was conceived, monarchs controlled the rights to issue coats of arms – nothing less than a form of state-sanctioned branding. But today when government launch brands for cities, they often get a pretty rough reception from their residents. The common complaint is that they are a “waste of money”.
It is true that it can be hard to link brand activities to a direct monetary return. However, the saying “perception is reality” has a lot of truth to it. We know that confident consumers spend more, and that investors will put their money in places that are growing, attractive places for people to live.
City branding is just as much about convincing its residents that they live in a great place as attracting investment from outside. Brands provide a recognisable “hook” for people to respond to, and can be instrumental in changing behaviour in desirable ways. For example, the draft Belconnen Town Centre Master Plan wants better branding for Lathlain St and Emu Bank to encourage people to eat and congregate in Belconnen instead of going to Manuka, Braddon, or Bunda St.
Here is the interesting secret of marketing today: You can’t just make brand claims that people don’t believe and make them stick any more. The taxi industry campaign #YourTaxis backfired badly when people shared their horror stories about taxis instead of their positive experiences. Oil companies like Shell, BP and Exxon Mobil face intense criticism and scrutiny for their attempts to position themselves as environmentally responsible.
Contrary to some beliefs marketing is now increasingly about substance, not spin. The Walter Kronkite era of authority where someone would be believed simply because of the position they held is long gone. The consultancy Brand Matters suggests four key things that are necessary for a strong brand:
- Credibility: Do your actions match your words?
- Relevance: Does your audience care about the promises your brand makes?
- Differentiation: How are you delivering on your promises in a way that is different from your competitors?
- Sustainability: Is your brand going to maintain a strong position in the long term?
Whether you are a politician or a multinational corporation, overcoming scepticism in the message you want to communicate is often the very first challenge. The first step is to establish trust in your intentions, but how can you do that if people won’t even listen to what you say?
There appears to be some confusion about the difference between National Land and Territory Land for the purposes of planning laws in the ACT. This is particularly relevant to the potential development of the 701 hectare Ginninderra Field Station site near Crace.
The relevant sections of the Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land Management) Act 1988 are:
6 Functions of the Authority
(1) The functions of the [National Capital Authority] are:
(g) … to manage National Land designated in writing by the Minister as land required for the special purposes of Canberra as the National Capital.
27 National Land
(1) The Minister may, by notice published in the Commonwealth Gazette declare specified areas of land in the Territory to be National Land.
(2) The Minister shall not declare an area to be National Land unless the land is, or is intended to be, used by or on behalf of the Commonwealth.
28 Territory Land
At any time when any land in the Territory is not National Land, that land is Territory Land for the purposes of this Act.
29 Administration of Territory Land and the taking of water on National Land
(1) The [ACT Legislative Assembly] Executive, on behalf of the Commonwealth:
(a) has responsibility for the management of Territory Land; and
(b) subject to section 9 of the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910, may grant, dispose of, acquire, hold and administer estates in Territory Land
In short, these sections mean that the ACT government has no planning powers over National Land. The National Capital Authority has full management and planning control. If the CSIRO site is developed while it is National Land, the democratically-elected Assembly has no say in what gets done on this site and when.
I have written further about the consequences of this situation on the Canberra Times and the RiotACT.
The draft Kippax Town Centre master plan continues the ACT government’s work in modernising our group and town centres in line with contemporary planning principles.
Canberra’s period of highest growth and construction was during the 1960s, a time when town planning prized neatness and separation of use. By building highly segregated residential suburbs, commercial districts, and industrial zones, planners encouraged a high reliance on cars to access jobs and shops.
Aside from issues of sustainability and transport, the biggest problem with this old-fashioned planning approach is that commercial centres become dead zones after hours. This leads vandalism and crime, and areas being perceived as unsafe. Planners now recognise that mixing residential developments with commercial developments is an important “eyes on the street” solution. By creating public spaces where residents and shop patrons are potentially watching at any time, people feel safer and crime levels drop.
Mixed-use developments more closely mimic the natural way that human settlements evolve. They provide important benefits such as access to nearby work, greater housing diversity, a stronger neighbourhood character, and pedestrian/bicycle-friendly environments.
One great initiative from Canberra’s early days was the Y-plan. This embedded the concept of mixed-use at the district level, and ensured a range of employment locations outside of the CBD that have saved us from the worst of the commuter problems faced in cities like Melbourne.
Mixed-use is also key to most recent developments such as the proposed cross-border development in West Belconnen / Parkwood. Over the next 20-30 years, up to 11,000 dwellings will be constructed. Residents will be able to choose between different precincts and a range of building heights including an urban village (1 to 6 storeys), village edge (1 to 4 storeys), and garden suburbs (1-2 storeys). The higher density regions are designed from the ground up to integrate a variety of uses that will ensure greater vibrancy and a more consistent level of public activity.
Urban infill and densification in our town centres such as Manuka/Kingston and Belconnen has also relied upon mixed-use principles. A greater residential population has led to more cafes and restaurants operating outside of business hours, creating a feel of activity and life.
By comparison, group centres such as Kippax and Jamison haven’t evolved significantly and while they may be a hive of activity during the day, they feel quite lonely and exposed after hours.
The influential urban activist Jane Jacobs championed the benefits for “density in generating vitality and the economic and social importance of diversity”, but cautioned that planning needs “careful observation and analysis of the way urban places actually work, rather than focusing on their outward appearance”.
In Canberra, a key challenge is to improve the liveability of town and group centres while respecting that suburban areas with few local facilities like Spence and Flynn will rely upon car travel for the foreseeable future. Even here, mixed-use has big benefits. We are seeing more activity flowing back to local shops as our larger centres get busier, encouraging people in our suburbs to walk and take shorter trips.
We are all a product of our times. Some of these changes challenge how we think cities should work. As the planning and urban design firm David Lock Associates wrote: “It is essential that collective consent for the lifestyle and behavioural changes needed to ensure sustainable growth is attained. Collective consent creates a sense of ownership across a community. This requires open and transparent conversations, using a range of techniques and media, in developing a vision for the future.”
One conversation we need to have more is about the function of the Capital Metro tram as more than just a commuter solution. Tram routes are ideal for mixed-use redevelopment, transforming the places they pass into vibrant, local communities where people live, play and work. The social opportunities unlocked by the tram are substantial and it would be a shame if they were ignored because of short-sighted thinking from certain political groups.
The CSIRO recently announced its intention to redevelop its 701 hectare Ginninderra Field Station site into a residential estate containing up to 10,000 houses.
The Field Station site is located between Fraser and Crace and is currently zoned as “hills, ridges and buffer space”. However, the National Capital Authority (NCA) have changed this in the current draft of the National Capital Plan to “urban area” at the express request of CSIRO. This may not seem like a big deal until you realise that the approving authority for any development on this site will also be the National Capital Authority, and not the ACT Government.
As I explained in a recent article for The Canberra Times, once this amendment to the National Capital Plan is approved, the CSIRO can essentially do what it likes. Since the Ginninderra Field Station is a National Land site, it simply has to get the NCA to rubber-stamp its plans:
The NCA does not have to seek approval from the ACT Government or reference the Territory Plan. It does not have to align with the ACT’s planned land release program or environmental standards. It can literally write its own planning rulebook.
To be fair, the CSIRO has good intentions, and is working within the current legislative framework. And at information sessions in September, a CSIRO general manager made a big deal of its voluntary consultation activities with residents and the ACT Government. However, it is very clear where the power lies.
The need for “National Land” status makes sense in some special cases, such as exempting Defence sites from normal ACT planning processes. But in a supposedly self-governing jurisdiction, it is inconceivable to me that the Federal Government should be allowed to take land it no longer needs in the heart of suburban Canberra and do whatever it wants with it. (The NCA is accepting feedback on the draft Plan until Friday 13 November. If you think this is as wrong as I do, please let them know your feelings.)
This is only part of the bigger picture though.
Our framework around self-government was set up a quarter of a century ago. It hasn’t kept pace with what we need locally or federally.
There is no justification for the NCA to ever approve developments that aren’t expressly needed for Federal Government purposes. The Act relating to National and Territory Land status in the ACT should be amended to ensure that land must revert to Territory Land status in the event that it is no longer required for Commonwealth purposes. This wouldn’t affect ownership but merely ensure that the planning controls instituted by our democratically elected Territory government can be honoured.
With improved conversations and conventions, the relationship between the ACT Government and the NCA could be cooperative and highly productive. The NCA should have been our best advocates, standing with the ACT Government in arguing for better compensation from the Federal Government on the Mr Fluffy issue. And given the significance of Northbourne Avenue as the entry way to Canberra, the NCA can still help the ACT Government lobby for Federal Government funds in support of the transformative light rail project.
Similarly, I was really pleased that the Department of Finance is now forcing the Department of Immigration to evaluate local impacts of a potential move out of Belconnen before any new tender can be released. But we should never have had an 18 month process of extreme uncertainty for residents and businesses that also left tenderers who engaged in good faith with the tender process hundreds of thousands of dollars out of pocket.
The bigger problem is that we are still essentially operating under the arrangements drafted by the Federal Government prior to establishment of self-government. Now that we are moving to a 25 member assembly, it is an appropriate time for a broad review that strengthens self-government arrangements in the ACT.
The National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) is expected to be in full operation in the ACT by July 2016. All children are now eligible to join the NDIS, with only adults born after 1 July 1965 yet to be inducted into the scheme. All other States and Territories will commence their full implementation shortly afterwards (with the likely exception of WA due to ongoing negotiations).
Unfortunately the NDIS is still a mystery to many who aren’t directly impacted by the changes. While the underlying funding model involves a lot of accountants and actuaries, the way it works for individual participants is both simple and revolutionary.
The big change is in who controls the money.
Previously, funding was provided to disability care and support organisations. These organisations would offer programs and services which people with disabilities would have to apply for. The onus was on individuals to discover what options existed to get help.
As the 2011 Productivity Commission report into the NDIS noted, this placed people with disabilities at the mercy of government budget cycles and annual funding allocations. If a budget got cut, services would be cut too, regardless of the number of people in an area requiring support. The unlucky ones would simply miss out.
When talking to carers and guardians of people with disabilities in the ACT, this view of the old system certainly rang true for them. Stories of carers simply not showing up to appointments for weeks at a time, and uncertainty about how to apply or check eligibility for available care programs were common.
People have been reluctant to complain about the system because they often felt lucky to get anything at all. As one carer put it, “You don’t want to seem ungracious.”
Under the new model, the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) administers access to the NDIS. Each participant in the scheme documents their “goals and aspirations”, after which a proposal for ongoing funding support is approved by the NDIA that is “fair, reasonable and necessary” and “in line with community expectations”.
Each “individualised support package” allocates an annual amount of funding which is tied to a range of particular support needs of that participant. The person (or their plan nominee) can then select an approved provider of their choice to perform the service at a time and place that suits them.
By having certainty about funding, as well as the freedom to select and change providers, the power relationship between care providers and the client is rightfully inverted.
Providers will need to learn to market their services and ensure the satisfaction of their clients in order to get paid. This is likely to be the biggest challenge for organisations unused to operating in a market environment. Ultimately though, the pressure to evolve and improve their service delivery approach should lead to better outcomes for both carers and clients.
The switch in funding arrangements will lead to major changes in the ACT. As just one example, Therapy ACT will cease provision of therapy services by the end of 2016, with clients assisted to find new non-government therapy providers during this transition.
Bill Shorten needs to be acknowledged and commended for being the key architect of the NDIS. The 460,000 people around Australia with disabilities who are expected to make use of the scheme will have better lives. It’s a great example of how politics at its best can deliver transformational and inspirational outcomes for our society.
Photo Credit: NDIS website
The first sitting day of the ACT Assembly in May 1989 was not smooth. Accusations flew about backstabbing Opposition deals being done for thirty pieces of silver; members mournfully noted that the first Assembly included at least four members who thought the Assembly should not exist at all:
Bill Wood (Australian Labor Party): We have not been born in the most auspicious circumstances … This is the only parliament that I know of that has people sitting in it, who now share our aims, who do not want to be here and did not want this parliament to be here. So we have problems. I believe that the first task for us as members [is to show] the community by the way we do things that this Assembly will work, that it is a good idea, that the enormous amount of work we are going to take in is a necessary factor in our progress.
In that first year, the ACT Assembly was literally being made up as it went along. Standing orders, committees, the first set of four ministerial appointments – all done for the first time. The early years weren’t pretty with two government collapses occurring in just over two years.
Independents and protest parties came and went over the first few terms of the Assembly. With the switch to Hare-Clarke voting, the only Independent MLA to survive the first four terms of government was the population health expert Michael Moore.
Over time, the Legislative Assembly has become a more mature representative body. Fourteen years after the declaration of self-government, in the aftermath of the Canberra bushfires, Assembly members said:
Jon Stanhope (Australian Labor Party): If anything good can be taken from this disaster, it is a reminder of the incredible generosity, bravery, resilience and decency of Canberrans … Canberra is not merely a collection of houses and national monuments; it is a living, breathing community with unlimited capacity to give, care and pull together.
Bill Wood (Australian Labor Party): If it was ever in doubt, ACT self-government has come of age.
Twenty-five years on from self-government, there are nearly 100,000 extra people living in Canberra. While it is never popular to say that more politicians are needed, the workload of the Assembly has, in fact, increased dramatically. It is not just because we have extra citizens; today there are many more complex agreements with the Commonwealth and other States and Territories to fund and manage health, education, national security, and social services programs.
After working in the Assembly for a number of years, I’ve seen the stress Ministers go through first-hand as they attempt to balance the portfolio demands from both Territory and Federal public service departments. The appointment of a fifth Minister in 2003, and then a sixth in 2015 were attempts to spread the load more evenly across the Executive. However we still need backbenchers to participate in committees and other important Assembly functions. This, along with the need for stronger local representation by MLAs, is why the expansion of the Assembly to 25 members is welcome.
What will the next 25 years of the Assembly look like? Ultimately, that’s up to all of us. Now that we have five smaller, more local electorates, each of our individual votes has never mattered more.
Over the next 12 months people wanting to take part in the new and expanded Assembly will be asking for your vote (yes, hopefully including me). It’s a good time for reflection on what matters to you about your local representatives. How can they deliver a better Canberra for all of us?
The full draft Belconnen Town Centre Master Plan is over 80 pages long, which can be a challenge for time-poor workers and parents to read.
In the interests of better public awareness and debate, I have created a summary of all salient points and proposed activities arising from the master plan, with page references back to the full document:
The current draft of the National Capital Plan is a disgrace. It exposes the lie that the Commonwealth has granted the ACT meaningful self-determination over the land within its borders.
With just a few strokes of a pen by the National Capital Authority and with no input from the ACT Government, the 701 hectare CSIRO Ginninderra site located between Fraser and Crace will have its zoning changed from “hills, ridges and buffer space” to “urban area”.
The CSIRO wants to develop an estimated 5000 to 10,000 residences on this site. Since the site is National Land, the NCA will have sole authority over whether the development proceeds.
The NCA does not have to seek approval from the ACT Government or reference the Territory Plan. It does not have to align with the ACT’s planned land release program or environmental standards. It can literally write its own planning rulebook.
At a recent information session, a CSIRO general manager made a big deal of its voluntary consultation with residents and the ACT Government. It’s clear where the power lies. Issues such as the cost of upgrading roads and infrastructure can be ignored at the whim of the CSIRO and the NCA.
To be fair, the CSIRO has good intentions, wanting to build a little city based on their scientists’ ideas of best practice while profiting from it. It’s just unfortunate that current legislation allows them to do this while completely ignoring democratic rights in the ACT.
We’ve been through this story before. In 2005, the Commonwealth unilaterally approved development of office accommodation and goods retailing facilities at the airport – now known as Brindabella Park and Majura Park. For many years afterward, people were forced to commute to these sites on roads lacking capacity and without suitable public transport options.
The situation also parallels the Immigration and Border Protection mega-precinct wanted by Secretary Mike Pezzullo, who ignored local impacts because he could. The good news is that a sustained campaign by local politicians and Belconnen residents has led to the Department of Finance requiring an assessment of local impact before any major accommodation changes for public servants take place.
The NCA serves an ongoing and important role in our national capital, ensuring that “the Commonwealth’s national capital interests in the Territory are fully protected, without otherwise involving the Commonwealth in matters that should be the prerogative of the Canberra community”.
But 25 years after self-government, there is no possible justification for the NCA to be responsible for approving plans for residential property development at a site 14km away from Parliament House in the heart of suburban Canberra.
In fact the NCA’s entire justification for changing the zoning to Urban Area in the National Capital Plan is, and I quote, that the “CSIRO requested this change”.
It would be laughable if the consequences were not so significant.
Most people understand that areas of the ACT with “special characteristics of the National Capital” are set aside as so-called Designated Areas under the control of the NCA. Commonly viewed by overseas visiting politicians and dignitaries, these areas include the Parliamentary Triangle, Lake Burley Griffin, connections from Parliament to the airport and the main approach routes to Canberra.
However, fewer people know that the Commonwealth may also declare any area of the ACT to be needed for Commonwealth use. Once this happens, the area becomes National Land and is no longer under the jurisdiction of the ACT government.
The problem is there is no obligation to ever return planning control over National Land to the Territory. National Land status should only exist on land actively used for Commonwealth purposes. Once land is surplus to requirements, Territory planning laws should automatically take effect again (although naturally the Commonwealth would retain ownership). Anything else denies ACT residents the right to have the Territory Government they elect managing their affairs.
During the consultation phase on the draft National Capital Plan, the NCA can still enable informed debate by publishing a full list and diagram of National Land areas. ACT residents deserve to know this much.
It is wrong to assume the interests of the Commonwealth will never align with the interests of the ACT Government and Canberra community. Departments and agencies are just following the rules as they currently exist. However, after 25 years of self-government a thorough review of National Land arrangements needs to take place to ensure the best interests of everyone concerned.
The Department of Immigration and Border Protection has announced that it is looking forward to “continuing its relationship with the Belconnen community” after cancelling the tender for its headquarters project. The tender had opened the possibility for up to 4000 workers to be moved out of Belconnen to the city or Canberra Airport.
Victory has been a long time coming. The tender was first announced over twelve months ago, leading to a protracted time of worry for workers and local businesses.
The long-term location for DIBP employees in Civic remains uncertain. However, it is possible that they may either obtain new accommodation in Civic or Belconnen through a new tender process, or take up surplus government accommodation in nearby buildings (for example, at ABS House).
The biggest win for Canberra is the acknowledgement that local impacts need to be taken into account when the Commonwealth changes its accommodation arrangements. For the first time ever, there are now formal processes to evaluate local impacts when a proposed move represents more than 10% of the available jobs in a locality.
This has shown the power of an active local campaign to effect change. Many individuals and groups have contributed to the campaign. Most notably, local pollie Andrew Leigh was tireless in his efforts to organise petitions, bus stalls, and promote awareness of the situation, aided by Chris Bourke, Katy Gallagher, and Zed Seselja. The CPSU has also run a very active campaign in cooperation with a number of other local community groups.
This is a genuinely great outcome for the Belconnen community and for the ACT that protects the viability of our town centres into the future.