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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2018 Week 02 Hansard (Thursday, 22 February 2018) . . Page.. 602 ..

MR MILLIGAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Minister, what recourse will be open to business to seek compensation for economic loss resulting in your government’s disregard for their plight and the welfare of their families?

MS FITZHARRIS: That would be up to those businesses, but I utterly reject the facts put in Mr Milligan’s question, and I ask that he would provide evidence for the government’s disregard.

Members interjecting

MADAM SPEAKER: We are just a few minutes in to question time. We have had to stop a number of times because of interjections. I have given Mr Milligan enormous leeway by allowing him to recraft that question. That will be the only leeway given this year; make no mistake. I will ask those on the opposition bench to be a bit more respectful during question time.

Public housing—Chapman

MRS JONES: My question is to the Minister for Housing and Suburban Development. Last year, 872 residents signed a petition requesting that the development proposal for housing on block 1 section 45 in Chapman be withdrawn due to its location within the bushfire prone area, amongst other reasons. As the minister would be aware, last week the development application was approved. Minister, was the ACT government genuinely open to changing the plans or refining the plans based on the development application consultation process? If not, what is the purpose of such a process?

MS BERRY: As members will know, this matter has been discussed in this place at length and also within the community of Chapman. There were over six consultation sessions with the Chapman action group. A number of the issues that were raised were taken into account and the feedback that was provided by the Chapman community was taken into account in the design of the dwellings.

That included a reduction in the number of dwellings from 29 to 20, ensuring that there were central trees kept on the site, adjusting the building layout and also making sure that the access to the site was changed. Yes, it was genuine consultation and the feedback was listened to and changes were made.

MRS JONES: Minister, given that you claim this was a genuine consultation process, why were the many objections to the development application made by residents overridden, and what would it have taken for the government to actually change the plans to build on this block?

Mr Wall interjecting—

MADAM SPEAKER: Have you finished your question, Mrs Jones?

MRS JONES: I do not know. People want to rephrase my question for me.

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