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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 3 Hansard (24 March) . . Page.. 788 ..

MR WOOD (continuing):

that under any sort of planning regime there would be an isolated housing development in that area. That really is not an option. It is going to stay as a caravan park or become an olive grove, or what else? What are the other options? The stories I hear are that it might be enough that the caravans will become olive trees in some sort of personal island in the ACT. That is the likely outcome, but we do not know. The residents do not know, and they do not know how much longer they will have a roof over their heads.

I have looked at the Territory Plan. I know what the plan says. It is pretty open actually because in the long term there are going to be changes there. Mr Smyth might have more recent figures than I do, but I guess that Gungahlin has quite a long way to go and Symonston is a long way down the track. The plan says that it is pretty open. The lease of that area is a key matter. I am told that a lease is being drawn up. There is not one at the moment, I gather. The Minister might apprise us about that, but there is no lease at the moment. That lease will be a key document. That lease will give a clearer picture of what might happen. That lease ought to be saying "for a caravan park", full stop.

Mr Kaine: Is it one block or three?

MR WOOD: Let us not go into that. What will that lease say? Will it say "for agricultural purposes" or "for a caravan park", or will it be a fairly open lease? A lease is being drawn up at the moment. I hope some influence can be brought to bear on the Minister about the wording of that lease.

Fundamentally, I do not think the park should be sold. It is a necessary asset for Canberra; it is a viable asset for Canberra. Across Australia local authorities own caravan parks. They have long recognised the need for them. I am sure that, like me, Mr Smyth, you have stayed at some of those caravan parks. The need is no less in the ACT. The Territory needs such a facility and the people who live there need that facility, without question. I have heard Mr Smyth say, "These are not public housing tenants. They own their caravans or their vans". I do not know about that. Every fortnight they front up to the manager, who sends the rent they pay straight through to the Government. They are government tenants. I do not know whether we need to argue whether they are government tenants or government housing tenants, but they are government tenants and the Government has a responsibility to them, especially because of the sensitive issue of this being their home.

In any event, I think it is important for the ACT Government to provide this sort of housing facility. It is quite appropriate for the Government to do so. Increasingly in Australia, as elsewhere in the world, we recognise that such a facility provides an important additional resource, a further choice for people as they seek an appropriate housing option. Not everybody can afford to live in a $300,000 house in Red Hill or somewhere else. They do not always want to move into a government house, although I say again that the Government has a responsibility here. In particular, this is an affordable choice for people. It gives them some security of tenure. I would like to see them given the same opportunity as residents at Sundown Village, who can get a sublease that gives them more certainty of the site that they are on.

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