Page 2703 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 12 August 2015

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

list or out-of-turn transfer list that we heard about during estimates and we had questions about yesterday in the chamber.

It is important that people are able to live in the area they want to live—close to their community, maybe close to their family members, close to where their children want to go to school. It is an important thing. It is about making sure that people have access to the services they want. They need access to transport and they need to not experience transport disadvantage. We have spoken before in this place about transport disadvantage.

Chisholm was one of the suburbs specifically mentioned by the government’s own transport plan. Once again, we are wondering why we are focusing on this.

Mr Barr: Keep on filibustering. Who are you waiting for?

MS LAWDER: No. I have 7½ minutes to go.

Mr Barr: Who has forgotten that they were on the speaking list?

MS LAWDER: There is plenty more to come. Apparently, the suburb of Chisholm had about 8.07 per cent of public housing at 2014 figures. I do not think I was suggesting that it was reaching high rates or high percentages; I was suggesting that it was having pockets of disadvantage as measured by the Dropping off the edge report and the seven or so factors that they talked about, which included transport, access to the internet et cetera.

There are many other things that we could be looking at in Mr Barr’s amendment. Mr Barr talked about the fact that this was a strategic approach. I have yet to see the evidence that this is a strategic approach. The government, as I have said, is, with almost indecent haste, seizing on available land on which to build public housing properties. That is all to the disadvantage of people who are already on the public housing waiting list or the public housing transfer list. Thank you, Mr Barr, for your considered amendments, which we will not necessarily be supporting today.

MR COE (Ginninderra) (11.43): My colleagues and I are somewhat surprised that the Minister of Housing is not speaking on this public housing motion despite the fact that even the Chief Minister’s amendment refers to the fact that Ms Lawder’s motion, notice No 2, deals with light rail and public housing. One would have thought that the Minister for Housing would have an interest in this—indeed, would be a stakeholder in this—but obviously not.

The genesis for the ACT government’s decision to relocate public housing on Northbourne Avenue lies purely in their decision to go ahead with light rail. They realise that light rail does not stack up as a transport option, so the only way to make this project even vaguely viable is to try and develop a Northbourne Avenue corridor and claim the benefits of this development for light rail.

To do this, they need to demolish the existing public housing properties on Northbourne Avenue. The problem the government face is that they are in such a

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