Page 1514 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 10 May 2017
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
It is not just the initial shock; as the shock wears off people are starting to feel distressed about the fact that that was not what they thought that land was for. I realise there have been changes made to the legislation to technically make it possible, but people were not aware of that. Part of our job in this Assembly is that when we make these sorts of changes, if they do have to happen, they need to be well publicised so the expectations in the community match them. People who bought houses in Mawson were being told at the point of sale when they were buying properties from the LDA that that land would be for community facilities, and I do not think residential properties of any sort cut the mustard.
If you drive around the block in Mawson, it is one square of grass surrounded by housing, and high-density housing. I think people knew it was not going to be a kids’ park, but they did not think it was going to be units, and I think that is reasonable. People spent a fair bit of money to build houses in Wright. They are not all rich people; some of them are going to be paying them off for 30 or 40 years.
The problem we have is that really significant damage has been done to the relationship between these people and government. Healing cannot take place unless there is not just an acknowledgement of the damage but reparation made to that relationship. That has not happened yet, and there does not seem to be much interest in that particular element, which would be to really question whether these sites and this type of land are the right way to go ahead.
I acknowledge the hard work of community members who do not get paid and who have felt so passionately about this issue that they have gone door to door. I know in some of the areas they have talked to public housing tenants in their own areas who are not that keen for these developments. I would be interested to know how many properties were together in Red Hill, which we know has been a problematic development over the years close to the shops there. There were reasons why that did not work perfectly. I think probably it is about the concentration. I think we can do better, even if a little more money has to be spent. You would not get any pushback from this side of the chamber if additional money had to be spent in order to make these developments much smaller and at a different location.
I encourage the government to have a look at the intent of these petitions and to act to restore the relationship to say, “We’re not going to go ahead right now with this plan,” and to revisit whether it is the right thing to do by the community. I hope proper consultation will take place, a two-way conversation, not just “You can pick the colour of the tiles,” or “You can pick the style of the housing,” or “You can have a say on that”, but whether this is the right site. If we do it quickly we may not run into deadline problems, but it does need to be done.
What other sites were considered? How can cabinet have another look at that? How can we consider what is in the best interests of everybody in the community—housing tenants and also the broader community who are suffering not only from shock but also this break in the relationship.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video