Page 3853 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 19 October 2005

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

MR QUINLAN: Oh, yeah, I should know off the top of my head. You have been digging into it. That is just daft. I will check that. If there is an international standard and an Australian standard, and if by virtue of there being an Australian standard there is an ACT standard, I will let you know. At this point we use the Australian Valuation Office, which is a government body. We have an appeal process. It is notified on the rates notice that anybody who wants to appeal can appeal. So do not think there is anything scandalous about this system.

The valuations do change. We have a three-year rolling average system that I think was introduced under a Liberal government. I think this is a very commonsense process of factoring out peaks and troughs and also factoring out a given year’s inaccuracy. So we have a safeguard within the system by virtue of that rolling average. It is worth the check but it is worth doing so on a rational basis and not trying to set up some sort of hysterical reaction as you have tried to do.

Aged care accommodation—development application

DR FOSKEY: My question is to the Minister for Planning. It concerns the proposed redevelopment of the Goodwin homes site. At a public hearing of the planning and environment committee’s inquiry into aged care accommodation last year, the chief executive officer of Goodwin Aged Care Services, talking about his plans, said that people were going to have to weigh up “I want mum to go in there” against “I don’t think you should be allowed to build that”. It is clearly no surprise to anyone that there are concerns across the suburb at the intended scale of development. Nonetheless, the consultation on the development application was a standard process, with advice going only to immediate neighbours.

Minister, is it a fact that aged public housing tenants in Goodwin Gardens, who share the block with Goodwin homes, were advised that they had no rights to object to the proposed development? How does that sit with the ACT government’s stated position that a public housing tenant’s house is their home?

MR CORBELL: I thank Dr Foskey for the question. I am advised that one tenant who sought to lodge an objection was incorrectly advised that they could not do so. Subsequent to that, the tenant was advised that they could do so, and they did in fact lodge an objection, as, I understand, did ACT Housing to the complex as a whole. They are, indeed, the most immediate neighbours of the Goodwin site at the moment. They abut the site. There is literally nothing between the two sites, whereas the other residents involved in relation to that development are across the road from the site.

It is my very strong view—and I think that it is shared by my colleague Mr Hargreaves—that ACT Housing tenants are entitled to lodge an objection. ACTPLA have been reminded that that is the case. We have certainly accepted any comments that have been made by residents of the ACT Housing aged-care units adjacent to Goodwin.

They have issues that I think are legitimate concerns, as immediate neighbours. I have had the opportunity to speak with one of those residents already. Indeed, I will be speaking further with that gentleman in the coming week.

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