Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 12 Hansard (21 November) . . Page.. 3937 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

have the Planning and Environment Committee monitor the implementation of that process. It was a fundamental and deeply felt condition of the process that the strategic development options for Ainslie and O'Connor be withdrawn. Obviously, Mr Moore's motion contradicts that concern.

The other concern is that senior officials who were at that meeting agreed that they would withdraw the strategic development options for Ainslie and O'Connor plan. That has already been agreed and the community is very reassured to have heard that. So that makes Mr Moore's motion out of step with the current situation. Nothing short of the plan being withdrawn will create confidence in the community. Confidence is starting to emerge again. They are being reassured gradually. Nothing will create that confidence needed to begin a genuine consultative process unless the withdrawal is acknowledged by Mr Humphries and not actually put into concrete, as Mr Moore will be doing if his motion is passed. The Planning and Environment Committee will be looking at this thing which no longer exists, according to the senior officials. I guess we will be hearing from Mr Humphries. He will be confirming that because that is definitely what was said. It is imperative that the Assembly formally acknowledge that the options document is withdrawn.

We are replacing Mr Moore's motion to ensure that the Planning and Environment Committee does have a role - we respect the need for that role - but it is a monitoring role that respects what the community has come out with. Of course, we have also added points about the issue of public housing. It is obviously very closely entwined in this whole discussion. I thought it was very reassuring at all the meetings I have been to with Ainslie residents that there has been a great deal of support expressed for people who live in that suburb who are tenants in public housing. We have included that aspect of the discussion in this proposal because it is very much integrated.

We have said over and over again that the Greens certainly do believe this Government's line about equity and using arithmetic equality to justify reducing public housing to 10 per cent in all suburbs. That means whatever it is; how far it is from amenities; how good the access is to public transport. That is actually equity. We have said quite clearly on many occasions in this place and elsewhere that the real question of equity is about the gap between the rich and the poor, not about an arithmetically even spread of public housing between suburbs. We want to see public tenants remaining disproportionately in areas that are well serviced and close to the major amenities, because giving locational advantage to the poor helps to reduce poverty. This sentiment, as I said, was supported at the public meetings that I have attended so far, so that is also something that we need to be including in this discussion.

MR SPEAKER: Before I call Mr Kaine, I can confirm that we have received in writing from the Greens the withdrawal of notice No. 31 on page 1033 of the notice paper.

MR KAINE (11.02): I support the motion put forward by Mr Moore. It follows logically that I do not support the amendment put forward by the Greens. I sometimes wonder whether the Greens understand that there are processes that have been set in place by law that have to do with planning. What this amendment purports to do is to set aside the statutory requirement for consultation, the statutory process, in favour of one that they prefer. I am not about to do that until they can prove, first, that the statutory

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .