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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 2 Hansard (20 February) . . Page.. 421 ..

MS TUCKER: Mr Corbell says that it does. That has to be understood quite clearly; apparently it is. We will be watching to ensure that that will be the way in which this authority works. The community has to be continually involved in the discussions. Any long-term view must take into account social and environmental considerations in the condition of the built form. That includes, as raised in this place today, the question of affordable housing. A residential development is taking place in the city, Bunda Street, on which I have asked the developers, Queensland Investment Corporation, about the amount of affordable housing that will be provided. The answer was of concern; it was extremely vague. I am hoping that Mr Corbell will show leadership here and find a way to pin down any development there so that it does provide affordable housing and that we have development that does take into account environmental pressures as well as social pressures.

I welcome the fact that this government is going to take a more proactive role in land development. I think that what the Liberals did was a disaster. It has produced mediocre development, which is not acceptable in 2002 when we know so much more about how to design developments to take into account the environment and have environmental benefits as well as social benefits. I am talking there about energy in particular, whereby we will see environmental and social benefits through lower charges and costs for people living in houses, as well as a reduction in greenhouse emissions.

We also have to take into account the natural environment in terms of the trees of this city and we have to take into account the density of development related to public transport and facilities, et cetera, so that we can then get down to having an integrated approach to transport, planning, and land use as well, which is long overdue. I am glad that the government is taking a more proactive role. The principles that this Labor Party ran on, which are that they will take serious account of the environmental and social aspects, as well as participation of the community, are good principles on which we can move forward.

MR WOOD (Minister for Urban Services and Minister for the Arts) (4.29): Mr Speaker, I am well on record in this place for supporting government land development. When I was the relevant minister some time in the past, I set out in that direction and I remain fully committed to that staged development. Mr Humphries referred a short time ago to one of the ventures that the Follett government initiated. There is a message always, and we took it at the time in moving into land development, that this is an area in which there is a lot of money to be made. It is also an area in which there is a lot of money to be lost if you are not very careful

Mr Smyth: You lost lots.

MR WOOD: No, we did not. One of the benefits of this proposal emerging again is that it will give me the opportunity to go back into the books and check out all those joint ventures that we undertook at the time. I certainly acknowledge that Harcourt Hill was the most problematic of them, but I happened to see an advertisement on television just recently about the last four blocks or something like that being sold.

I drive around Harcourt Hill often enough as I pass through to a relative's spot in Nicholls. It is upper class, whatever you would like to call it, but it is looking okay, if you like that sort of thing. It would seem to me to have been quite successful. Every

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