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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 9 Hansard (6 September) . . Page.. 2901 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

It is a ridiculous waste of effort and money to employ a cultural planner to undertake a social and cultural facilities audit in the city and inner north while, at the same time, and before she has reported, deciding on the amount and configuration of community space in the most significant development in the city.

The issues around section 56 are interesting. Mr Humphries was interjecting when I was addressing some of these issues last week, and explaining the Greens position on urban consolidation and the principles that would guide our approval of urban consolidation. Mr Humphries was saying delightedly that we did not want to see the car park developed in section 56 and that our policy actually says that we do think this is a good idea. Once again, that is a totally silly response, because what we have said quite clearly about section 56 is that this is a unique opportunity.

The government is having this audit done. It is probably one of the most significant opportunities for actually integrating community support facilities, because the government has a much greater say in this than it will have in other areas that may well be redeveloped later on. There was a classic example of lack of foresight when, midstream in this process, the decision was made to put a supervised injecting place in the QEII building, which meant that the Junction Youth Centre there, had to move. So suddenly there had to be a place found for Junction.

If this community social and cultural facilities audit had actually been allowed to run its course, then we probably would have seen an acknowledgment that you do not just decide what will be in a major redevelopment, and what the configuration will be, by considering what is there now. You actually take a long-term look at this first, and then you make a proposal to the developer.

Harcourt Hill is another example. We accept that part of this site is suitable for housing, but the government has allowed residential subdivision to destroy a huge swathe of trees there.

We have been concerned that the government is taking a very rigid approach to the assessment of the ecological value of Conder grasslands and the north Watson woodlands. They may not fit exactly into the definitions of endangered ecological communities, but they have environmental value nevertheless. (Extension of time granted.) They have environmental value, nevertheless, that the government has not adequately accounted for in its planning. Here we once again see the government telling the community that they cannot have this space conserved unless it is paid for by some development.

Last night I was also at the meeting at Griffith. It was a very interesting meeting. Not only was it interesting to hear what such a large number of residents concerns were, but it was also very interesting to hear some of the answers to questions asked from the floor. At one point a person from the floor did ask a question of an official there, who had assured the community that there was an option of no development and things staying as they are. The question asked was: "If the decision was to have no development, would there be repercussions for the Griffith community?"

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