Page 727 - Week 02 - Thursday, 25 February 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
concerns about it. The planning minister appears far more comfortable with the plan. Because this is a planning debate we will not go into all of the cost implications of the plan, but they are significant; they are massive. There is no doubt about it. Mr Hargreaves knows; he has seen the costings. He referred to the costings in terms of the some of the public housing promises that we have seen even in the Greens-Labor agreement. If you are going to put 10 per cent public housing in the Molonglo valley—that is roughly 3,000 homes—we are talking $1 billion-plus. That is what we are talking about. Treasury numbers said 1,200 public housing properties might cost around $500 million, so you double that to 2,400 properties, and you are around about the $1 billion mark. You are talking big dollars.
You are talking also financial implications in moving to 7-star ratings and moving to 7-star without talking to the industry about what the implications are. When I spoke to the HIA, I was surprised that the Greens had not spoken to them to actually find out whether it could actually be achieved and what would be the cost. Ms Le Couteur was on radio last week, and it started off at a few hundred dollars and then it was a few thousand dollars. The answer is that they do not know.
But we go to some of the broader planning issues, and one of the things from the announcement that struck me as concerning was this idea of limiting to one lane the road in and out of Molonglo. How has that worked out with, for instance, Gungahlin? How has the one-lane idea worked out for the residents of Gungahlin? Take a poll in Gungahlin and ask them whether it was a good idea to have one lane on Gungahlin Drive. Was that a good idea? Is the congestion they are suffering now something that they would want to see repeated in other parts of Canberra? I would say no. I would say that the vast majority of residents would agree with that and that they would say that condemning the people of the Molonglo to that outcome would be a big mistake. It would be a major planning debacle. There are a number of other aspects that we could go to but there are obviously some concerns. We have put the concerns out there.
In relation to the statement of planning intent, I will just conclude on this: we do need more substance to it. There are some worthy goals in the statement of planning intent, and we will take the time to look through them in detail to see which we agree with. But the more important thing will be how we get there. Do you have a plan to get there? That is the real challenge. That is the challenge—to go beyond some of the sloganeering that actually appears in the statement of planning intent.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo): I seek leave to respond to the minister’s statement.
Leave not granted.
Standing and temporary orders—suspension
Motion (by Mr Rattenbury) agreed to, with the concurrence of an absolute majority:
That so much of the standing and temporary orders be suspended as would prevent Mr Rattenbury from making a statement in relation to the Statement of Planning Intent 2010.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video