Page 2059 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 7 June 2017
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
But we must give the architects, the builders and the designers, the opportunity to showcase their skills. But at the moment under some of the planning rules that is stifled and it is very difficult for them to showcase their skills.
One thing that occurred to me in the discussion we have had so far is that, whilst we have touched on Ginninderry as one example of a joint partnership that is going well, what we have not talked about is the CSIRO site at Ginninderra. I refer to a Canberra Times article of 29 March last year which talked about a workshop that they were holding and looking to experts for proper integration of affordable housing options as part of a new community. The workshop included experts from universities, social service agencies, charities, banks and financial institutions who came together for an affordable housing think tank in Canberra on 8 April.
According to this article, the CSIRO were to engage a consortium or joint development partner for redevelopment. The article also went on to talk about the elements that they wanted to address in this 701-hectare area. That included this quote from the article:
… ensuring we delivered a benchmark in urban sustainable design in Australia. One of the other issues identified as key is addressing affordable housing.
“We’ve invited experts along, both ACT and interstate based leaders in a range of areas, including architecture and building design, financing, home ownership models, community housing people and energy efficiency.”
The article also went on to quote ACT Shelter Executive Officer Travis Gilbert, who welcomed the think-tank event and said that the CSIRO was committed to incorporating the needs of affordable housing consumers.
For reasons best known to the government they have chosen not to engage with the CSIRO on the Ginninderra site, at least to date in the public realm. But the CSIRO site would be using many experts in sustainable design et cetera and could well address some of the needs that Ms Le Couteur’s motion has already referred to.
I think what you could see from this discussion today is that we agree in principle with the motion put forward by Ms Le Couteur. But I think the motion includes too much restraint to be practical at this time. The demonstration buildings need to have the fluidity to fully develop and implement innovative designs.
Mr Gentleman’s amendment about looking at excellence in construction and design quality, carbon neutral buildings, medium-density infill, innovative planning and engagement approaches, innovative housing products and typologies, close partnership with industry bodies, options for public and affordable housing and reporting back to the Assembly by the last sitting day in November this year would, we feel, meet the needs at this time.
But I would note that in his amendment Mr Gentleman mentions calling on the government to engage with the community. I must confess I am a little sceptical about
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video