Page 1548 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 10 May 2017
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
My concern with Mr Gentleman’s amendment is that it really does not acknowledge the considerable issues in this. It is not just a matter of saying, “Yes, there was a technical amendment and, yes, there were only two comments on it so don’t worry about it, folks.” That is a bit too blasé and positive for this situation. I am very hopeful it will end up being positive for the potential new residents of these suburbs and positive for the community in the long run, but at this stage it is contentious. That is one of the reasons I tabled my bill earlier today; hopefully it will put a halt to any other inappropriate technical amendments until the Assembly has considered my proposed solution. Obviously I will not be moving my amendment, suffice to say that I have considerable concerns with the motion and all the suggested amendments.
MS LAWDER (Brindabella) (12.14): I would like to speak to Mr Hanson’s amendment and Mr Gentleman’s amendment. I would like to thank all members for their comments and make a few general remarks about some of the debate we have had so far. Firstly with regard to a referral to a committee, it would appear from the petitions presented earlier this morning that there may well be some work for the committee there anyway. I feel that it is important for us to consider that it is relevant and useful to refer this matter to the planning committee. As a member of that committee I can assure you all that I have no concerns about an additional workload in regard to that because that is, in my view, exactly what we are here for, to address community concerns. It is one thing to talk about it but it is another thing to actually put your money where your mouth is. I am quite prepared to do that.
I could refer you to other instances where committees of this place with heavy workloads have undertaken additional work and in very short time frames. One example was the inquiry into the eradication of the loose-fill asbestos insulation which was undertaken by the public accounts committee in a very short and tight time frame. It was a lot of work not just for the committee but for the secretariat, and a lot of pressure was put on the public to make their submissions in a short time frame as well. It was a lot of pressure for everyone involved. But when you have important issues it is important to address them.
We have had quite a bit of discussion and a number of people talking about public housing and you will see from the original motion that the intent was to discuss the planning and the zoning laws and whether it is appropriate to put public housing on CFZ zone land. It was not intended in any way to be a debate about public housing or public housing tenants.
My husband was a public housing tenant for 25 years. When I first arrived in Canberra the first, and in fact the only, person in the street we moved into to come across and say hello and have a cup of tea was the single mother across the road who was in a public housing property. I was friends with her, and my kids were friends with her kids for years. I do not mean this in a rude way but big deal! That is Canberra.
We have public housing all through our suburbs. We all know people, if we are not those people ourselves, who have grown up or lived in public housing. Big deal! They are people just like you and I, our brothers, our sisters, our friends, our colleagues, our aunts and uncles. They do have, as Ms Berry talked about this morning, the same
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video