Page 557 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 14 March 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Section 2 (b) of my motion calls on the ACT government to make the options paper and costs-benefit analysis for the sites available for public comment. This is appropriate, given the controversy surrounding the future of these sites and the resulting lack of community trust in its government. I believe that if the government was confident that it was making the right decision for the community in the right manner there would be little reason to keep these documents a secret.
I note that the government’s surplus property policy and guidelines do not require a community consultation process unless significant planning and land use changes are proposed. If this is the case, community consultation will only occur under relevant statutory and administrative processes such as ACTPLA’s territory plan variations. That is patently inadequate in this context, as the community will be consulted on only one option, not a range of options, and too late in the decision-making process.
It has often been suggested that the sites in question should be developed for aged care and supported housing. This comes under the umbrella term “community use”. While the Greens are absolutely supportive of an increase in the supply of these facilities, we see no justification for simply turning over the land to an organisation, be it for, or not for, profit and justified by our need for residential aged care. I was pleased that the Assembly recently amended the territory plan to make school sites somewhat more secure. But in the context of recent changes, I think we need a more certain, consultative and transparent process than the guidelines require prior to the sale or demolition of any buildings on these sites or the construction of any new ones. My fear is that any amendments to land use will simply legitimise the fait accompli of internal government process and decision-making.
In the absence of public information, rumours are circulating that the ACT government plans to increase community rental rates to the point where community groups will be unable to afford to move into closed schools, thus giving the government an excuse to sell the land to developers. Mr Speaker, if that is true, it is an indictment of the process that people believe in. Groups are also wondering if community rental rates will increase in other premises or just in those schools. I certainly hope there is no truth to this rumour and that the minister will quash it in this debate.
If and when the government decides to lease these sites to community groups, I would expect this government to abide by its community rental rates, as set out in its current application guidelines, or implement an affordable rental rate below this which recognises the inadequacies of these sites in their current state. After all, this was stated as a reason for closure.
Section 3.4 of the ACT government’s surplus property evaluation guidelines states:
In the situation where the property has been vacated before a property evaluation has been completed, Property Group will attempt to tenant the property on a short-term basis to ensure that the building continues to remain in a satisfactory condition and to reduce the risk of vandalism.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .