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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 9 Hansard (23 August) . . Page.. 3239 ..

MR HIRD (continuing):

committee and this place. It also indicates to the larger community that we have a role to play in local government. The uniqueness of this chamber is that we play that role as representatives for local matters as well as state matters.

I cannot emphasise enough how important it is for the committees of this parliament to pick up on local concerns and provide a forum for them to be addressed to, and by, local members. Indeed, Mr Speaker, you and other members will recall that my committee encourages local members to participate in the inquiries that are before the committees.

The second reason why this report is important is that it deals with an ongoing problem of section master plans: how to prepare them, how to adjust them and how to make them do what the members of this place want them to do, which is to foster change in our inner suburbs while protecting the interests and amenity of the residents who want to remain in their homes.

Our report has 11 recommendations. The first recommendation deals with the way in which questionnaires distributed to local residents by PALM are formulated as well as the assumptions that seem to lie behind some of the questions. We suggest some improvements to these questionnaires.

Recommendations 2 and 3 pick up on what local residents want for their particular sections. Recommendations 4, 5 and 6 suggest some modification to existing design and siting controls in these sections. Recommendation 7 reflects the concern of residents about the second development outcome drawing prepared by PALM for these sections and circulated to residents.

While PALM's first development outcome drawing reflects actual information obtained, its second drawing is based on assumptions about the final shape of the development in the sections once each and every block is developed in accordance with the existing land use control. Many of the residents in these sections are in their twilight years, and they do not need to be told that PALM is looking forward to a full-scale redevelopment of each and every block.

Also, development outcome drawing 2 itself may well be irrelevant, as PALM has certainly been known to change its attitude in the past. I cannot say that this proposal by PALM will mean that they will not do it in the future. This may well occur in relation to this area in the future, as I indicated. So we have recommended that PALM discontinue the preparation of development outcome drawing 2, known as "drawing 2".

Recommendation 8 deals with the review of all section master plans at seven to 10-year intervals. Recommendation 9 relates to the practices of developers and real estate agents in areas earmarked for possible redevelopment. My committee was most concerned at stories of unwelcome, unsavoury and even cruel pressure being applied to residents to sell their homes. Fear is used as the basis of these pressures and it seems to be aimed particularly at elderly residents.

The committee recommends that the government, through the appropriate regulatory bodies, monitor the practice of agents and developers. If necessary, this place may be called upon to take future action on these unsavoury practices.

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