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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 1 Hansard (14 February) . . Page.. 180 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

the legislature and the power of the executive. With that power goes a responsibility that we take seriously and will continue to take.

Something that is quite interesting to me about the Old Red Hill development and the proposal for dual occupancy is that if there are any places in Canberra that would lend themselves to dual occupancy, they are the places with the biggest blocks. Of course, Red Hill fits into that category, as do Ainslie, Braddon, Reid and Kingston, which we have seen largely redeveloped.

Mr Speaker, that is where I would say that perhaps we should and that is where there is a tendency to focus on dual occupancies. The reason that I would still oppose any dual occupancy at the moment is that we are still allowing them to happen in a way that looks just like carpet bombing. We do not know what happens to a suburb where they land. I think that it actually destroys the amenity of parts of areas within our community. That is why I am opposed to dual occupancy.

If asked whether I opposed dual occupancy on a particular block that looked really good and was really effective, I would say no if the dual occupancy works nicely, is effective, maintains trees and does not undermine the nature and the residential amenity of that particular area, but put another four in on either side of it and another one round the back and the whole character of the place changes. One of the things that we are trying to do is understand what we need to do with the system of dual occupancies to allow the odd ones to occur that do not undermine the amenity of the rest of the suburb and to give the residents the confidence that it is a one-off or there is going to be a limited number of them, that they are not going to change the whole character of the suburb.

There is tension, if you like, between those who are looking for dual occupancy and those who are not. The tension is not just tension with those who want to make some money out of a dual occupancy. There is that side of it and that is fair enough. There is also the side of it in the older suburbs-for example, Red Hill-where people have grown up there and their houses have got to the stage where they cannot handle them, but they want to be able to live in the same suburb. Dual occupancy facilitates that or facilitates families living closer to one another and makes housing in that suburb more affordable for people. There is a series of reasons why dual occupancies do fulfil a purpose. Like most decisions that come before us, there is no black and white situation of "Yes, they are good" or "No, they are bad". Mr Corbell would probably agree with me that there seems to be a place for dual occupancies.

What is missing is an understanding of how we contain them, of how we put them into a planning system in a planned way. Our planners have been very good, although there have been a few bungles, at planning greenfields development, getting it right and understanding what is needed. We are still having trouble with planning our residential renewal, our redevelopments.

I look at Kingston in its current condition and think, "Obviously, lots of people like living there. There is an atmosphere there that suits some people; so be it." It is certainly not a place where I would choose to live, but I know that a lot of the people who live in Kingston would not choose to live where I do. Pain went on with that renewal at the time. In fact, I recall being told that the suicide of a couple of people was associated with

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