Page 1271 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 29 March 2017

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

MR HANSON (Murrumbidgee) (5.04), by leave: I will quickly respond to the comments by Ms Berry. The point was very much specifically not about average people who are not in supportive housing needing to live close to amenities. The reality is that most Canberrans can access motor vehicles; they do not need supportive housing. The specific requirement of the zoning is supportive housing. That often means that the sort of people that we are looking to support are people who do not own motor vehicles, who often need access to medical facilities and to employment. This is the very reason that, in many cases, they are on Northbourne, which is a very good transport corridor and close to amenities.

The point I am making—and it is a valid one that is trying to be skewed by Ms Berry—is that if you are going to put people into locations that are a long way away from those amenities, that is a problem. I would suggest to you that in Chapman, and particularly in Wright and Holder, you are going to be a long way from the supermarket. Just try walking down to Cooleman Court from Chapman, Wright or Holder. It is a long way.

These are the sorts of issues. It is not going to be helpful if you are just trying to spin it. The people that are going to be provided with this accommodation by very definition are in need of support. The locations they are going to be put in are not ones where they will receive adequate support. It is an inappropriate location.

MR PARTON (Brindabella) (5.06), in reply: In closing, I would like to say that there are many reasons why these proposed developments should not go ahead. There are many indicators that those opposite have again taken the community for granted and treated us all with disdain, many indicators that those opposite, although they are happy to construct an overabundance of rules and regulations, have a belief that those rules do not apply to them. Again, in responding on the amendments, the minister did not mention supportive housing and how this is going to fit in. There are many indicators that suggest that those opposite believe they can run the territory almost as a dictatorship: they can do what they like because they have got a mandate; if the rules do not suit them, they can just ignore the rules.

There is not going to be any supportive housing on these sites at Mawson, Holder, Wright and Chapman. They are not going to comply with their own guidelines. And who is going to stop them? They are a law unto themselves. There is no house of review here. Do we seriously call this a crossbench? Mr Rattenbury is a major cog in the machine. He is off saving the world at the moment. Ms Le Couteur just gets dragged along for the ride.

I thought that we may have seen some amendments from the so-called crossbench, but, again, we see the Greens toeing the government line. If only there was a risk of shadows falling upon an open space or a KFC outlet—maybe if there had been a KFC outlet proposed for one of these sites—maybe we would have seen some backbone from the Greens. But, as is the case with pretty much everything in this place, they are just going to roll over and support the government.

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