Page 3366 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 19 August 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
to improve the liveability of dwellings. I remind members that the federal Greens voted for the stimulus package, and I commend them for that.
I am pleased that the ACT government will be building all properties to a six-star rating. I have to point out that the ACT is applying a six-star rating to all stage 1 properties as well, even though this was not a commonwealth stimulus package requirement. Recently, too, I engaged in major consultation with architects and associated experts as to future directions in the quality and best design practice for public housing dwellings in the ACT.
All of those aspects referred to by this motion are already occurring, as I have explained here. They will, of course, be applied to any future development, such as Currong.
What is concerning me most about the motion before us here today is that this call by the Greens for a design competition is ignoring the most important issue relating to the Currong apartments, or for that matter any concentration of multi-unit, multistorey public housing properties anywhere in the world—a concentration of social disadvantage. Sure, a design competition might decide on an architectural style, amongst other things, but paint colours and carpets will not address the issues of disadvantage faced by many public housing tenants in multi-unit properties, such as drug and alcohol abuse, domestic violence, mental health issues and access to appropriate services.
ACT Labor’s priority is to attack social disadvantage by getting out of these multistorey, multi-unit complexes while preserving support service structures. You will be aware that we have already done this with Fraser Court in Kingston and Burnie Court at Woden.
The government’s approach is one that salt and peppers public housing properties throughout the suburbs, taking into consideration individual and case support needs. In practice, this means placing our tenants within the community, with all the attendant benefits—not having them isolated in pockets of disadvantage in multistorey, multi-unit complexes. The Greens seem to want us to make a choice between that and improving the design and colour of a silo of disadvantage.
I do not believe that a competition like this would provide much value in addressing the underlying issues. The development of the Currong apartments site is being progressed taking both social and environmental concerns into account.
I also have to say that the jury is still out on the K2 apartment complex in Melbourne referred to by the Greens in their motion. Yes, it won many designs and architectural plaudits, but the Victorians tell us that there is no evidence yet of a direct link between the design of the complex and addressing the cycle of disadvantage facing so many public housing tenants in multi-unit properties.
We have also been told that, like us, Victoria believes that the preservation of support networks and the dismantling of silos of disadvantage is good public housing policy. K2 concentrates 96 units in one location. Approximately half of the units have tenants with a disability. The site in Melbourne is 4,800 square metres—less than half the size of the Fraser Court site, which had 104 units in it.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .