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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2017 Week 04 Hansard (Wednesday, 29 March 2017) . . Page.. 1261 ..

MR HANSON (Murrumbidgee) (4.31): Well, there you have it, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is very clear, from the words spoken by the minister and Ms Le Couteur, that this is going ahead. They both made it clear in their speeches that this is about the money. Ms Berry in her speech talked about asset recycling and the fact that they could not put anyone on Northbourne because it would interfere with asset recycling. For people who may be unaware, asset recycling is all about the money from the federal government for light rail. It is all about the dollars. Ms Le Couteur made it very clear when she said, “There are budget constraints. This is all about the money. This is a big factor, and that’s fair enough.” This is all about the money. This is all about moving people from Northbourne out to areas where the government essentially owns the land, because it is zoned community facilities where, free of charge, they can build these facilities rather than on Northbourne. It is unambiguous.

If Mr Steel or Ms Cody were in the chamber as local members for Murrumbidgee, I would remind them, as I remind Ms Le Couteur, that it seems that if she gives this the green light, there is no doubt they will give it the green light. We will work with the community. If this is built—and it should not be built, as Mr Parton has made it very clear—we will remind every member of the affected community between now and the next election that this is thanks to Ms Le Couteur, Mr Steel and Ms Cody. These are bad plans.

I thank Mr Parton for bringing this motion before the Assembly today, because we have been listening to the community. It is not just about what is going to happen in Chapman, Wright, Holder and Mawson; it is about the effect on public housing tenants. As much as we are hearing words like, “I’m concerned,” it is very clear from what we have heard today, and it is very disappointing to see, that Ms Le Couteur is supporting this amendment—and it is a very bad amendment from the government—because it is just a bunch of weasel words. It is very clear that they are going to push ahead with this. To be honest, it was very clear in question time today when we found out that there have been plans to relocate PANDSI from Holder for a long time. This has been in the pipeline clearly for a long time.

Mr Parton: Secret plans.

MR HANSON: Secret plans; indeed, Mr Parton. I make the point as well—in response to what Ms Berry said—that this is not about the quality of public housing; it is about the location. Yes, it is very important that the public housing stock be renewed and that we make sure that people are in good accommodation. And it is fair enough to say that some of that stock on Northbourne is not. But that is not the point. This is about relocating people from where they live, close to amenity, out to the outer suburbs in inappropriate locations.

I speak on this motion as a local member, as Mrs Jones will shortly. Let me be very clear: I do not support any of these developments in my electorate. They are wrong, and I will go to that point. Firstly, the broader point is that this is not salt and pepper. These are big developments; they are not salt and pepper. I have heard Mr Parton call them clumps of pepper. I think that is an appropriate point. This is not a genuine salt and pepper approach. Ms Berry said:

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