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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 12 Hansard (21 November) . . Page.. 3943 ..

MS McRAE (continuing):

necessarily meant to intersect. The way that public debate has been going, particularly with the changes foreshadowed at the national level and the changes that have been foreshadowed at the local level, it does mean that what may seem clear cut to anybody who understands the workings of government, to anybody who is involved in the Assembly, to anybody who is looking at the plans that the Minister has put forward, is not clear cut to the person on the ground who does have some level of concern about the future of public housing in Ainslie.

The amendment that I foreshadowed and that will be moved by my colleague will try in some way to assure the community that the Assembly committee is not unaware of those issues and may well take them into account when inquiring. I would have thought that we could have covered that under "any other related matter", but I understand why Ms Tucker is so keen to move this amendment. Ms Reilly is trying to do that. As I say, things that may seem clear cut, separate and logical to us, things that should have no fear for the community, things that are not even on the drawing boards to happen, are not necessarily things that the community sees in the same way.

Given that the issue has been stirred up to this level, I think that this committee of inquiry may well be a way of dealing with the planning issues, which are rightly within the purview of the committee, and, as the Minister said, it can do no harm if the Planning and Environment Committee is the watchdog on this Government activity to assure that community that the processes are open and fair, and maybe to modify them if necessary. Given that it is not happening in isolation, that it is not purely planning ideas that are going on in Ainslie but potentially a change to the proportion and the nature of public housing in Ainslie, I think it is very important that the Assembly note these very serious concerns and consider seriously the amendment that my colleague will move in order to make the amendment perhaps more acceptable.

Overall, this is an opportunity for the members of the committee to be informed about the Minister for Housing's plans and about what the real plans are in terms of public housing versus the notional plans that are on the books for planning in Ainslie. To that extent, it is an ambivalent sort of situation. I cannot support the amendment as it is put, but I would want to support the sentiment and intent of the amendment, which is to give voice to the community concern and to try to help the community unravel their very genuine concerns about public housing versus their very genuine concerns about planning and the implications for their own suburb. Of course, more importantly, this being one of the first suburbs to be done in this way, there are implications for the rest of Canberra. I think it is very important to keep on track in terms of the potential for change to our suburbs.

MR SPEAKER: Members, I am not 100 per cent sure about the foreshadowed amendment. Is it to be added to the motion moved by Mr Moore?

Ms McRae: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: The amendment that Ms Reilly is to move is to Ms Tucker's amendment. That is what I am speaking about.

MR SPEAKER: I am aware of that, but I am seeking some clarification because Ms Tucker's amendment states "Omit all words after `That', substitute the following". I am not sure how that fits in with the original motion.

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