Page 409 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 2 March 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Stevenson, would you please take note of what Mr Connolly has said.
MR STEVENSON: Indeed, Mr Deputy Speaker. First of all, to claim that there was no government housing perhaps would be impractical if the development had not been finished. You could not say one way or the other. Also, to say "no government homes, therefore protecting your investment for resale" indicates that it is going to be protected in the future, not just for a few days or months or a year or two. To say, "protective covenants - ensures your second home has good surrounding development" would indicate the same thing. There is no doubt that home owners in Canberra have the right to purchase properties that they feel are not going to be near public housing. One could say that that is a good idea or a bad idea, but you cannot make the statement that they should not be allowed to do it. Everyone has the right to buy a property for whatever reasons they wish.
When we look at the question of the Government's involvement, we must ask, "Did the ACT Government, the Minister for Housing, or any of the relevant departments he administers, know about these deceptive claims?". As the advertising campaign continued, apparently, for some two years, indicating no government homes, it is logical that they must have known. Let me read a statement from one of the people who have been most concerned in this issue. David Wheeler, the organiser of the Gordon Valley Estate Betrayed Home Owners Association, first contacted Mr Connolly's office in November last year, 1993. This was after hearing that section 426 was medium density government housing. He told me that he was eventually told by a lady from the Housing Trust, representing Mr Connolly, that people had inquired as to whether or not the area would have government housing and that they, the trust, had hidden nothing from those people and had informed them that no such guarantee could be made. That made sense. He says that they were told that the trust was aware of Realty World's advertising campaign in relation to public housing. When he inquired as to why they did not warn the public to ignore the ads, he was told that the ACT Government could not compete with Realty World's advertising dollar. That statement can be substantiated by someone else.
The public housing land purchase was finalised, I believe, in August 1992. I am not aware that the claims of no government housing were made after that time, but it is interesting to note that late last year Hooker, a real estate company, was telling people - I have statements - that they were going to be age pensioner units. This was long after it was known that they were not going to be age pensioner units. I have statements from people that, when they eventually did ask what the site would be used for, they were told that it would be only a retirement village for age pensioners. I also have statements that some of the age pensioners, in the eight properties of the 36 that have been set aside, asked the same question, and they were told the same thing - that they were just for age pensioners.
I know, as everyone does, that it is a policy of the ACT Government to integrate housing in the ACT. One would say that this is a good policy. However, who would suggest that a 36-unit housing development was integrated housing? It is not. Is there any benefit to the Government because of what happened, because they did not take any action? Indeed, there is.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .