Page 414 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 2 March 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
spirit of the agreement, they said, "Yes, we understand that in the future our resale value may be enhanced by the fact that there are going to be no prefabricated buildings. We will not build a carport. Let us not put the curtains on, or what have you; let us build a garage in brick". That is what they did, only to find out that across the road there are 36 prefabricated carports. It makes them twice as angry as they were at the beginning. It comes back to one thing. I believe, like Mr Connolly and Mr Stevenson, that this is a consumer affairs issue; it is not a housing issue.
My other concern, though, was this: At one of those meetings that I attended the question was asked, in public, "Is there anyone here representing the Housing Trust?". This had gone on in the media for a number of weeks. I knew, Mr Deputy Speaker, that there were at least two people there who quite obviously worked for the Housing Trust. When the question was asked, "Is there anybody here representing the Housing Trust, because we would like to ask them some questions?", no-one said anything. I was tempted, I must admit, to say, "Hey, listen, I am aware that there are two people here representing the Housing Trust", but I was honestly afraid for those two people's health had I done so. A lot of those people genuinely wanted to ask some straight questions. What I am suggesting is that if anybody turns up from the Housing Trust they obviously should own up. All people want is to have their questions answered, for heaven's sake. They were not there, as I said. Media reports speculated about demonstrations against the Housing Trust.
Mr Connolly: No. That was the meeting where there had been an ad in the paper the day before saying that there wo0uld be a demonstration against the community group. Our people were there to resolve the conflict, in case there was trouble. They were not there as spokespersons. That is why they did not identify themselves.
MR DE DOMENICO: Mr Minister, thank you for that. Had you waited just a little longer I would have said that it was in reaction to an ad in the Canberra Times on the Saturday that suggested that there was going to be a pro-public-housing demonstration against the supposed anti-public-housing demonstration, which never was, anyway.
Mr Connolly: No; but it could have been nasty, which was why we had a couple of people there.
MR DE DOMENICO: It could have been nasty. Minister, had you been there, or had anybody from the other side been there, you would have noticed that the police were there as well, as a precautionary measure, and that is fine. There were, in fact, no other people protesting pro public housing.
Mr Connolly: The police were there only because of the possibility of the two groups coming into conflict, not because of the - - -
MR DE DOMENICO: Fair enough, and so they should have been. That is wonderful. As I have said, Mr Deputy Speaker, this is more a consumer affairs issue. I must admit that, once the Minister was convinced that people were genuinely concerned, he immediately asked his Consumer Affairs Bureau, and Mr Charge in particular, to look into the matter. The Minister tells us now that he has referred all files and paperwork to the DPP. I accept the situation that this place has certain privileges that other people do not have, and I think it would be unwise to comment any further in that respect.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .