Page 4442 - Week 14 - Thursday, 9 December 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Turning now to the response from the Government to our report No. 2, I would like to address my comments to each of the recommendations where I have some disagreement with the Government. In recommendation 3 we talk of the viability of joint venturing arrangements between community organisations and private enterprise. The Government's response states:
Through the ACT Housing Trust, the Government is expanding its range of aged persons' accommodation through joint venturing with community organisations and private enterprise.
It goes on to state:
The Government believes that the advantage of such a joint venture arrangement is that community organisations may continue to provide aged care accommodation without having to provide the significant upfront construction and infrastructure costs.
I have no argument with that, but I do say, Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, that it still does not address the question of aged people who wish to live independently. I do not believe that we have - - -
Mr Connolly: Public housing - another public enterprise initiative of this Labor Government.
MR CORNWELL: I do not believe that we really have addressed this question in terms of the entire community, Mr Minister. I turn now to recommendation 5, which refers to "allowing more flexibility for redevelopment particularly with respect to dual occupancy and separate title arrangements". We are aware that dual occupancy provisions are part of the design and siting approval process. I believe, however, that there have been a few unintended consequences of that. I certainly have received complaints, and perhaps other members of the Assembly have, in relation to dual occupancy in adjacent properties. Two of those have concerned Housing Trust properties. I was interested to know that Housing Trust tenants, whilst being consulted about these, really do not have much choice if it is decided by the trust, and that is the Government, that dual occupancy will take place on the block where they are residing. The alternative is, "If you do not like it we will move you". I think, however, that this needs to be examined in a little more detail. I note that the response says this at paragraph 19:
In mid 1992 the Minister for Urban Services formed a task force to review residential development guidelines in the ACT. The task force is now developing a set of standards that will allow greater flexibility and innovation in residential development.
I would like to know when that might come through. The Minister might like to let me know at some time whether the matter has - - -
Mr Connolly: We will table them and make them public when they are finalised.
MR CORNWELL: Thank you very much indeed, Minister.
Mr Lamont: The Labor Government doing it better; better than you ever could, even in your dreams.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .