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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 10 Hansard (Wednesday, 25 August 2004) . . Page.. 4169 ..

Mr Pratt: They haven’t got the bottle.

MRS DUNNE: It is something that requires a bit of bottle. It requires a bit of mettle. But what we have here is a weak-kneed Minister for Environment who is terrified of proposing that we build a new dam for fear he might alienate a few Greens. It is quite obvious that the government is trying to put that issue out beyond the election because it is so indecisive and does not want to make an enemy of anyone. In doing so, it is creating great discontent in the community. The community knows that building a dam will not solve our current water crisis, but the community also knows that it never wants to revisit a water crisis like the one that we have.

We have to look at the issues and see whether there is anything else that could be done. There was some joking before about whether it is the responsibility of the government that there has been no rain. Quite frankly, it may be. It could well be, because I know that there are scientists who have put to the government that it should be investigating cloud seeding to ameliorate the present problem, but the government will not do so. It will not even return the calls of the experts.

MR DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member’s time has expired.

MR WOOD (Minister for Disability, Housing and Community Services, Minister for Urban Services, Minister for Police and Emergency Services, and Minister for Arts and Heritage) (4.38): Let me add a hefty dose of reality to this rather surreal debate. I have been listening to debates here for 15 years and I have never in all that time heard such fanciful hyperbole. It is imaginative beyond belief—it really is. The speakers opposite do a disservice to this chamber by engaging in such nonsense. Mrs Dunne makes outrageous claims and says what she thinks others have done. It is totally unrealistic.

Let me stick to the facts. Government housing has been mentioned. I am surprised that the opposition continues to do this. When they ran housing it was a disgraceful period of administration. As we well know, their clear policy was to sell, sell, sell—reduce the level of housing stock. That program was well underway when we came to government and I stopped it.

We came in with the intention of holding onto the public housing stock that we had. We have done that. We have maintained the level of stock. It has not been an easy task. We have done that by commitment and hard work.

We have returned—Mrs Burke did not seem to like it in another reference—security of tenure to tenants. That is important. There are a couple of ifs and buts to that: we do require that they pay their rent and maintain their property—but they have security of tenure.

We invested unprecedented levels in our stock. I wish it were more. In the seven years before we came to power things just stumbled along. The amount of new money that we have put in is indeed very considerable. It is a change from what the lot opposite did, which was put in no more than was required—the modest amount required, the miserly amount required—under the Commonwealth-State Territory Housing Agreement. That is

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