Page 4477 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 14 October 2009

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

---

scrutiny, who do not want independent analysis and who are focused on ideology. There is one party who wants the Auditor-General to have an independent analysis of the matter.

In closing, I again thank my opposition colleagues for their words and their support on this motion. They recognise the importance of an independent review. They have made many points and have raised many of the concerns that have been expressed in the media, in private representations and by peak bodies—and I read out the list at the beginning of my motion as to how many they are—ranging from medical groups through to independent citizens who are concerned. I thank them for their comments.

I am seriously disappointed, and I am surprised, to be frank, that the Greens do not support this motion. I thought that they would have seen this as an opportunity to provide independent scrutiny. I thought that is what the Greens were talking about when they came to this place, but we have seen time and time again now that the rhetoric changes. When it is something that they support ideologically, they want it pushed through. If they do not support it ideologically, they do not.

Question put:

That Mr Hanson’s motion be agreed to.

The Assembly voted—

Question so resolved in the negative.

Motion negatived.

Housing—non-government providers

MS BRESNAN (Brindabella) (4.05): I move:

That this Assembly:

(1) notes:

(a) the growing role of non-government housing providers in the supply and management of supported and affordable housing;

(b) the difference that the ownership of housing, and its condition, can make to providers’ viability; and

---

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