Page 1260 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 29 March 2017
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
community that they will, hopefully, become part of. Local communities deserve to be made aware of the government’s considerations at the earliest possible opportunity and then given the chance to have meaningful input into the proposed development, be it about size, orientation, traffic issues, open space, bushfires, design et cetera.
In this, the urban renewal task force have failed. I attended a meeting of the Weston Creek Community Council last week where they were scheduled to attend. The task force chose not to send to the meeting a senior officer who could answer questions. They did not bother informing the Weston Creek Community Council this was going to be the case. They sent a PR person whose only message was that the task force was not in a position to answer questions at that point in time. I have been told there was another meeting at which nobody from the task force came, despite the Weston Creek Community Council believing that they would be coming. This is the sort of thing that makes the local community feel from the beginning that the consultation is not genuine. I think this is an area where clearly the government can, should and must do better.
I have had considerable discussions with Ms Berry’s office about this motion and I am pleased that she has taken on much of what I put in a proposed amendment dealing with genuine consultation and ensuring that any new developments are sympathetic with the look and feel of the existing surrounding community. Given the numeric situation in the Assembly today, I will not be moving my amendment only to have it defeated. Instead, I am very pleased that the government has agreed to do better as far as consultation is concerned. I will be voting for Ms Berry’s amendment.
All community concerns need to be heard and responded to as best as possible. Many of these concerns are, I believe, based on planning issues, and that would be the case for any development on that site. For instance, I think both Ms Berry and Mr Parton, although I may be wrong, mentioned Chapman. I understand that residential development was blocked there previously because of bushfire concerns. That is a legitimate concern which the government will have to address. I am confident they will address that. The last thing they would want is a bushfire destroying ACT government assets or in any way negatively impacting on tenants. I am sure this will be looked at but it is very important to avoid resentments on the basis of early poor consultation, souring the relationships in the future. It is important that feedback is taken seriously and designs amended where appropriate.
In summary, the Greens support this positive housing renewal program. To be successful, it actually needs to be an exemplar of community engagement. While the Greens do not support Mr Parton’s motion, the Greens and I very much understand the community concerns that led to it, and I thank Mr Parton for bringing this motion to the Assembly with the aim of ensuring that we do public housing better.
I very much hope and, indeed, expect that as a result of this debate today the urban renewal task force will lift its game as far as consultation goes. This will be in the best interests of public housing tenants, the surrounding communities and, indeed, Canberra as a whole.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video