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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 02 Hansard (Wednesday, 3 March 2004) . . Page.. 665 ..

Some really quite sensible proposals have been put for looking seriously at the redevelopment of the industrial area or the semi-commercial area of Belconnen—I am not quite sure how it is classified, as well as the Phillip commercial zones—

Mrs Dunne: Trade services areas.

MS TUCKER: Mrs Dunne tells me that they are called trade services areas. These areas have lots of potential. They are certainly underutilised now and are not particularly a thing of beauty, but they have very good attributes considering how close they are to public transport and other facilities and there is the potential to bring about a mix in those areas which could include accommodation for aged people who are happy with that kind of more urban environment.

There is also the whole question around the golf course development which the environment and planning committee is looking at, I understand. I have concerns about the government’s position on that and can see why some would argue that this development is being rejected by the government because it does not want to see its other development on the lake threatened in some way.

I do not know whether that is possible. If we have such a need for aged care, you would not think that that competition would be a real issue. Whatever the reason, I am concerned that the government has been so hostile to that proposal at Belconnen. Whilst it does have some issues around proximity to services and bus routes, so do the other places that the government is supporting. That is a real inconsistency. You cannot argue that the one on the Belconnen golf course is not okay because it is not really close to services if you look at the distance from the Bruce proposal to facilities. Also, the lakeshore proposal is not really close to services, so the government is not taking a particularly consistent position in arguing that access to services is a major concern with that proposal.

I am sympathetic to the position of Mrs Dunne that the ACT government can and should do more to facilitate the development of aged persons accommodation. I would suggest that some of the redevelopment targeted for central Canberra could have some lease purpose clauses inserted in them to ensure that there is a growth in accommodation for the aged. There is a danger, however, that the need to develop a range of aged care support and accommodation could be at a cost to other community facilities or the environment if we are not careful about what we are doing. Obviously, the Greens will want to see that the processes are respectful of the other things that the community values.

MRS DUNNE (3.49), in reply: In closing the debate, I thank members for their support—I think that it goes without saying that this is a vitally important issue—and I thank the government for its participation in this way, but I think that it is doing so a little begrudgingly. The minister justifies his position by saying, “You’ve never asked for information in the past; that’s why we’ve never told you anything.” That rather belies the election commitment of open and accountable government.

Mr Corbell: Maybe it just means you’re lazy. It is rumoured.

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