Page 1362 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 25 March 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
as builders have no incentive to build houses that are both large and affordable. We understand that ACT Housing ends up spot-purchasing six-bedroom homes that have expensive gas-ducted heating, many windows and halogen downlights. This project offers an opportunity to create a long-life stock of large houses for social housing.
There is also an ongoing issue on the future for Causeway residents. Despite the tight time frame, it would be possible to put an innovative mixed housing solution in place which would see Causeway residents offered the opportunity to live, along with others, in a leading-edge, energy-efficient, low-emission, contemporary development.
It is conceivable that all these things will be done. Presumably those members of the community sector who are well connected enjoy informal contact with key government decision makers and, with a bit of luck, some of the important components of an adequate housing plan will get put in place. But the key point here is ensuring that community expertise does shape the housing plan. Given that plan has to be put in place by the end of June, one would have thought the government would be keen to take on board all the information that it can.
The same thing applies to expertise in environmentally sound, low-energy, affordable buildings. Canberra is full of well-informed and creative expertise, ranging from Energy Strategies to Derek Wrigley, via the Green Building Council, and the Institute of Architects, among others. The feedback we get is that well-organised and well-considered purchasing plans with clever design can deliver cheaper and better performing buildings.
I am aware that the government is pleased with the processes its officers have in place and does not see a need to get any guidance from external experts. I appreciate the very evident concern that any commitment to a consultation process threatens to slow the very tight commissioning process down. It would seem that this government is very confident that its processes always cover the necessary bases. However, the Greens believe that this motion is an attempt to structure in some constructive assistance.
However, I understand that neither the government nor the opposition will support this motion as it is presented. That is unfortunate, as the Greens do believe that drawing on community-based expertise is vital to achieving the best possible outcomes. Community experts in the energy efficiency and emission reduction field are often frustrated by slow government processes. Similarly, many of the community sector organisations who are at the cutting edge of service delivery are not convinced that the government has all the understanding and support. That is why we are calling for action now, at the front end of this project.
Consequently, following extensive discussions with the minister and his office and discussions with Mr Coe from the Liberal Party, we have put together some amendments that take on board the concerns expressed to us by the other parties. I would still prefer the more specific and concrete approach that the original motion reflects but would rather see something constructive within this tight time frame than nothing. So I seek leave to move the amendments to my own motion circulated in my name.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .