Page 1251 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 29 March 2017

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


peppering public housing in the suburbs, but they are not doing it. Thirty apartments in a leafy suburban street is not salt and peppering. These are big clumps of pepper in areas that seem unsuitable.

And they seem unsuitable for many reasons. We know that an aged care facility was mooted for the site at Chapman and that it was knocked back because of bushfire risk. It was too dangerous for an aged care facility but not too dangerous for public housing. We know that the three developments at Wright, Chapman and Holder, and additionally the development on Shackleton at Mawson, have been announced for community facility zoned land. I know there has already been some discussion in the chamber on this today, but we seriously question the validity of the planned developments on this front.

A community facility zone is supposed to facilitate social sustainability and inclusion through providing accessible sites for key government facilities and services for individuals, families and communities. The government’s own planning guidelines suggest that land zoned for community facilities use should provide accessible sites for civic life, allow community organisations to meet the needs of the territory’s various forms of community, and safeguard the amenity of surrounding residential areas against unacceptable adverse impacts, including from traffic, parking, noise or loss of privacy. This land is supposed to be used, according to the guidelines, for things like childcare centres, community theatres or cultural facilities—wouldn’t that be wonderful in Wright?—or for an emergency services facility, a health facility, an indoor sports centre, an outdoor recreation facility, parkland or a place of worship.

Interestingly, the territory guidelines suggest that the only exempt developments for this zone which would involve residential use—the only two exempt developments which involve people actually living there—are for a retirement village or for supportive housing. What is supportive housing?

Ms Berry: It is public housing.

MR PARTON: The ACT planning and land authority, minister, does not define it simply as public housing. The ACT planning and land authority defines supportive housing in this fashion:

Supportive housing means the use of land for residential accommodation for persons in need of support, which is managed by a Territory approved organisation that provides a range of support services such as counselling, domestic assistance and personal care for residents as required.

Certainly, those that I have spoken to within this sector suggest that what has been mooted for these sites is not supportive housing. So we are all wondering which territory approved organisation is going to be providing the support services for the new residents at Holder, Chapman, Mawson and Wright, and what those specific services will be. Based on what we know about the government’s plans for these public housing developments in Chapman, Holder, Mawson and Wright, they are just going to be standard-issue public housing and they will not be within the guidelines of supportive housing; thus they would fall outside the planning guidelines. Are the


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