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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 12 Hansard (21 November) . . Page.. 3949 ..

MS HORODNY (continuing):

Mr Humphries, as I said, has denied that this particular plan for Ainslie now has no status. In other words, it still does have status. The consultation process also includes another public meeting at the end of March with, again, a small groups discussion, and then a public meeting in mid-May, at which time it is hoped that there would be some kind of considered option being put forward for what the community in Ainslie wants and what some of the planning proposals might be at that time. This was a well-attended meeting. There were probably 200 to 300 people there. The residents were very clear on having a review mechanism in place during this process of consultation through to the end of May because it was well recognised that, if we got to the end of May with a process that had no option for reviewing as we went along, it would again be a case of closing the stable doors after the horses had bolted, so to speak.

Mr Humphries said that there had been extensive consultation prior to these development options being put forward; but, in fact, many residents at that meeting on Sunday said that they received a questionnaire which asked them to make comment on the values that they were looking for in Ainslie, and some received that questionnaire only a few days prior to it needing to be sent back. So, in fact, there was very little time for those people to look at that questionnaire and to come to a considered opinion. They were asked to jump from a value statement to a development option that was worked out in such detail as to have, as I said earlier, nuts and bolts right throughout the plans. We have seen plans that detail very carefully ideas about densities and the number of floors that might be considered in particular streets. I would suggest that that is a very big jump to make from a value statement to an options paper that is so detailed, and it is not the right way to go.

People need to be consulted properly. Their views need to be considered and looked at before we get to something that people find very frightening, particularly older people in that suburb. There are people who have lived in that suburb for 50 and 60 years and I do not think they deserve to be treated in this way. I think it is very important that we respect housing tenants particularly who live in that suburb, and, indeed, all people. There were people at the meeting who are in their seventies and eighties and I think it is very disrespectful to throw a plan of their suburb at them without them necessarily having ever been talked to and consulted with.

This Government clearly has a lot of homework to do in terms of the way they consult with people. "Consult" is a word that is bandied around quite a lot. Consultation is about active participation in a process. It is not about putting down a plan and then saying to people, "Do you like this or don't you?". Often people have no redress and no opportunity to make a change to that development in any case. I suggest that the Government consider very carefully and take into account the views and considerations of people living in that suburb. The proposal that the planners put together finally must contain very solidly the ideas, the considerations and the values of people living in that suburb. They must not ignore those things, because they are very important.

MR WOOD (11.51): Mr Speaker, the ambit claim by ACT Housing was always doomed to be the failure that it will be. The problem with the proposal has been identified. That problem was that the planners, the people in ACT Housing, sat down and carefully worked out their ideas. I guess they came up with many documents presenting those ideas and that, of course, was the problem. I suppose that these are good, professional people who have been well trained and they do like to sit down and draw up their plans.

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