Page 809 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 16 June 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The house in Fraser is, indeed, for supported accommodation. I think it is now being used by a women's group as a form of emergency accommodation. It is a Housing Trust policy, as it always has been, to purchase houses in the community that are of a standard comparable with the community. We do not have welfarism; we do not have poor quality houses for welfare cases that are identifiable as such by people in the street. This is a house that will be used by women in crisis with children in crisis. The house was on the market at what we thought was a fair price. Yes, it does have some of those facilities and, indeed, they will be used by these women and children most appropriately.
In relation to consultation with the neighbours, it has been a longstanding policy, endorsed by this Government and by your party when in government, that we do not, as a rule, identify supported accommodation premises and, particularly, we do not identify women's shelters. There is an obvious reason for that. Women are often fleeing domestic violence, are in crisis, and it would be very poor public policy for us to identify the location of those houses. I hope that any of the media who care to report this will not report the particular address. I think Mr Cornwell did mention the address, but I am sure he was not intending to identify any shelter. I would hope that any reporting of this simply refers to premises in Fraser.
That policy on a number of occasions has been challenged by what I could only describe as NIMBY attitudes. People say, "Well, we know that there is a need for women's shelters. We know that there is a need for houses for people with substance abuse problems. We endorse all of that. But it should be somewhere else, not in my suburb". It is popularly suggested that Tuggeranong might be a good place for such premises. I had a number of those sorts of comments to my office. I say to those people that we will put those premises throughout Canberra, in ordinary suburbs and in ordinary streets.
In relation to not this house but another house at Melba where there were very similar circumstances, there was a complaint to the Ombudsman in relation to our failure to consult and divulge, and the Ombudsman said that we were following appropriate practice. He endorsed the longstanding practice of both Labor and Liberal governments not to go out and say, "We are putting a women's shelter next to you". It has always been the case and I think there are appropriate social justice reasons to continue that.
MR CORNWELL: I ask a supplementary question, Madam Speaker. Mr Connolly, is it government policy, therefore, to purchase for supported accommodation services properties which include 10-metre swimming pools, reverse cycle air-conditioning, separate air-conditioning in the master bedroom - or perhaps that is a bit of a misnomer in this particular case - and an in-ground sprinkler system? Please, what is the policy in relation to these matters as far as your Government is concerned?
MR CONNOLLY: Our policy, Madam Speaker, is to get value for the dollar, to look at a house that is good value for the area and to continue to scatter houses throughout the suburbs. If the Liberal Party is taking the view that supported accommodation or welfare housing should be substandard, rough, hairshirt-type accommodation, we have come to a sad state of affairs in the ACT.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .