Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 13 Hansard (7 December) . . Page.. 3945 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

The Planning and Land Management group also found the preliminary assessment did a poor job in assessing the social impacts of the redevelopment on community facilities, and said:

There is no discussion of the socio-economic impact of the potential the proposal has of creating a wealthy residential enclave.

The Planning and Land Management group's evaluation also points to discrepancies between the:

... rhetoric of the IKFDA regarding Ecologically Sustainable Development and the details of this proposal.

The preliminary assessment claims that the redevelopment has the potential to achieve significant improvements in urban sustainability in the area of social equality, and yet PALM points out that it:

... does not attempt to reconcile this aspiration with the anticipated price of housing in the proposal.

Prices will be as high as $350,000. PALM recommended that 10 per cent of housing in the redevelopment be priced to permit market entry by less affluent members of the community. It also concerned me that the plan variation only refers to many of the environmental management requirements and principles as elements to be dealt with later on, but really they should be built into the proposal right from the start, so that they will be considered equally, and with other planning and economic considerations. There need to be detailed strategies to reduce water use and increase recycling of waste water, minimise the environmental impacts on Jerrabomberra Wetlands, reduce energy use, use recycled products and recycled waste products, adopt low-energy systems for lighting, heating, cooling and appliances, and ensure solar efficiency through building orientation and design.

The new Kingston Foreshore Development Authority has a major task before it in making sure that this development lives up to its vision. The Bill before us today merely sets the administrative framework for this work, and I do not have a problem with this. I note that it is likely to have been modelled on the Gungahlin Development Authority Act 1996. What does worry me, however, is that there is one significant difference between the Gungahlin Development Authority Act 1996 and the Kingston authority, and that is the proposed membership of the authority.

I believe that, unless the people who work within the authority have a commitment to ESD, then it is not going to happen. It is pointless having all the right objectives for the authority if its managers and staff do not understand what these objectives mean, or know how to implement them. So I will be, when we move into the detail stage later this week, moving an amendment to the Bill to prescribe some of the positions on the board of the authority. I will talk more about that in the detail stage.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .