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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 01 Hansard (Wednesday, 11 February 2004) . . Page.. 186 ..

But this will not abrogate the responsibility of the minister, and this will not abrogate the responsibility of this Assembly, to listen to the views of the residents of Fadden and Macarthur in terms of plans intended for that area.

The government also deserves sharp criticism for this piece of lazy planning. That is what this is—lazy planning. For the clients of the existing facility this will cause a degradation of the type of service provided now. The intimacy of a centre of this size and the quality of service that this intimacy provides will be lost. Indeed, Karralika centre residents have actually represented this view and a number of them were present at a meeting last Thursday and spoke of this concern.

The new building that is proposed will devastate the suburban environment in the ridge area dividing Bugden Avenue, Fadden, and Jackie Howe Crescent, Macarthur. I can see that clearly by observing the site and seeing the planning concept. The residents in both of these streets and in the general suburban area overwhelmingly feel this. Putting aside the emotions of shock and change, the residents have clearly and objectively outlined why this is very poor planning. They have calmly and with great articulation illustrated what I call the lunacy of this proposal and the blatant unfairness thrust upon the residents of these suburbs—actions of a cold and uncaring government.

The residents also point out the unviable nature of this planning proposal with respect to the future of Karralika. In terms of the balance that exists and the analysis of this issue, I have been pretty impressed that the overwhelming majority of residents have supported the existence and ongoing operation of Karralika. They pretty much see Karralika as a good and unobtrusive neighbour, and they respect the role that Karralika plays.

The residents who closely border Karralika, particularly at 77, 79 and 81 Jackie Howe, express this view, and their objectivity and their fairness are to be admired. In fact, they are to be admired more than we might admire the government’s fairness and objectivity. To describe these people as a bunch of hysterical nimbys, as the minister did, is outrageous and unprofessional.

Ms Tucker: No, he didn’t.

MR PRATT: Yes, he did. Mr Speaker, I have visited the properties that sit immediately beneath Karralika on Jackie Howe Crescent. Has Mr Corbell done that? Looking at the plans for expansion and standing on these properties, it is very clear to me that these properties will be literally overshadowed and dominated by the three-storey structure proposed in the plan.

It is starkly clear why these residents are outraged. Their backyards—indeed, bedrooms and family rooms—will be looked into. There is a very real possibility that their land values will be severely affected. The government and the planning departments have to take that into consideration, and they have not so far. Were these residents consulted? Were those people sitting immediately below the Karralika site consulted? They were not even spoken to by the department or the government.

Other residents in the immediate area will also suffer property devaluation and a degradation of lifestyle. That is clear. Anybody with any understanding of planning and land management will understand this very important factor. But the minister does not

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