Page 1629 - Week 06 - Thursday, 13 August 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
making associated with the provision of this facility. For any person to gain entry to the property, all that is necessary is to hop over my side fence. If the Trust had been more responsive to the Social Contract that the neighbours offered, and allowed it to develop a more accepting response would have resulted. The result has been more active discrimination against the people most vulnerable and in need of the service.
I have no argument with anything that that woman has said in relation to this matter. Sadly, her comments about the Housing Trust also apply to the ACT Planning Authority because, when I asked a question of Mr Wood as to whether there had been breaches of the Planning Authority's criteria for siting supported accommodation in residential areas, I received a reply saying that there had been no breaches. Well, I have news for the Planning Authority or, perhaps, for Mr Wood, because it appears that the authority either does not know or seeks to hide from its own design and siting criteria.
I have now placed another question on notice highlighting what I believe is the Planning Authority's failure to follow their own guidelines. I would refer to two points: First of all, the maintenance of residential amenity for people living in the immediate area; and, secondly, the criterion that the building facade is to blend with the existing streetscape. I have asked whether they would explain why those two criteria have been breached by, firstly, failure to advise local residents of the occupation; secondly, the installation of full-scale security lighting; thirdly, security screening on the front windows of the property; and, fourthly, enclosing the open front verandah with timber frames and nylon mesh. I would also like to know why, at a minimum, the residents were not consulted on their views on design and siting conditions as it affects their residential amenity.
Unfortunately, the secrecy surrounding these issues of supported accommodation has clearly led, I believe, to arrogance - "arrogance" is the word - on the part of those who have the job of providing the accommodation, and I think that is rather sad. Unfortunately, this arrogance because of this secrecy raises very serious questions of public accountability. It has allowed the protection for neighbours to be ignored or abused, and whether or not there is any suggestion of the misuse of funds - I would not for a moment suggest that there is - the secrecy surrounding it leads to those suspicions. Very clearly, openness is much better insurance, and I believe that it is good insurance.
There needs to be an improved, more positive means of public consultation in order to create supportive and protective environments for the residents of supported accommodation houses.
Mr Connolly: "Not in my suburb" is the view that you are running.
MR CORNWELL: I will give an example of that in contrast, Mr Connolly, to show the difference that consultation can make. I refer to the house in Florey, Madam Speaker - a purpose built refuge. The neighbours were originally consulted about its use as a children's refuge. They were involved; they were supportive. After the function of the house was changed - without consultation, I might add - from a refuge to a holding station for Quamby and the new function affected the amenity of the neighbourhood, there were objections.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .