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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 3 Hansard (12 March) . . Page.. 917 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

The notion that, if we save these sorts of areas, we are not going to be able to house people; that they will therefore go over the border; and that that will not be sustainable, can be challenged easily by the position that I, and the Greens, have always taken.

We have not opposed increasing density around facilities-public transport, commercial centres and so on. We have not opposed in-fill on car parks, for example. We have supported community concerns about filling in ovals and parks, which the previous Liberal government chose to do-or attempted to do. We have hectares of land in this city that we could be developing for medium-density housing. That is accompanied by a viable public transport system, so we do not require very much public space for parking.

Mrs Dunne also said she was reflecting on the position Mr Corbell now holds, and asked what his position would have been if he had been sitting on the other side on this issue. That is a good question-I was thinking the same thing myself. I would also say how interesting it is to hear Mrs Dunne speak so passionately about affordable housing, when that call was ignored for the previous two terms of government.

I am very disappointed with what has happened with developments such as Kingston foreshore. As far as I can see, there is still no real understanding of affordable housing accommodation there. I think there may be some notion of affordable housing in the latest one-the Metropolitan.

As to Mrs Dunne's position in the previous two Assemblies-working with Mr Humphries-they were an absolute, shocking failure in respect of their responsibilities regarding affordable housing and the environment. For both major parties, the notions put by them change, depending on whether they are in government or in opposition.

I would be interested to know from Mr Corbell exactly how many hectares of land we are looking at for potential residential development, since the fires, and how that compares to potential other suburb development, such as Gungahlin. That is interesting, but it is not going to be the definitive factor that will determine whether we can afford to protect endangered ecological communities such as the yellow box/red gum grassy woodlands.

As I said, we would have the capacity to house many more people in this city, if we were filling in places such as car parks. We certainly need to look at the issue of how to house people. I am in no way belittling that need or that concern. That is something the Greens have been raising for several years in this place.

Mr Corbell talked about social sustainability and, when looking at sustainability, the need to take into account broader questions than the physical environment. I don't think it is negotiable. On these particular ecological communities, we should be protecting what is left and taking a regional perspective. I cannot believe we are even having to have the debate, to be honest. That is the bottom line for the Greens.

The second point is about social sustainability and what it means. I will talk about Nettlefold Street a bit more, because it is an interesting example of what it means to a

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