Page 2373 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 31 July 2018
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
members of the community that were here that day, as well as me, Ms Le Couteur and anyone else that listened to that debate, would not have walked away with anything other than a very clear understanding of the commitment from the government to the establishment of a playground at Waramanga.
I turn now to what has happened today. The minister has backtracked; she has backflipped. What we now know is that there is no commitment to a playground at Waramanga; it is off the table in terms of a commitment. What will now happen is that members of the community of Waramanga will have to go along to a government-led process, with a bunch of other representatives from different suburbs, and they will have to fight for the scraps. My understanding is that there is $1.9 million in the budget for playgrounds, but the bulk of that is for maintenance of the existing playgrounds, which then leaves an amount to build new playgrounds, perhaps, or enhance existing playgrounds. Certainly, it is very unlikely that there will be a sufficient amount to do everything the government is talking about, and it will certainly not provide a new playground in Waramanga.
Members of the Waramanga community now have to go along with a whole bunch of other people to this government-led forum and argue their case again. They have to argue their case again in a government process when they have already received a commitment—on 21 March this year—that has now been reneged on by the government and by the minister. She was in this place saying, “I commit to a playground,” and that was not true. What she has done is that she has misled the community. The community were going away and thinking they had a commitment and now they have to come back and go through some process and bid for the scraps.
Whether the decision of the minister on the day to commit to that playground or not was right—I personally thought it was—the fact is that she did it. She said that she would commit to that playground, and she has lied to the community. She has come back into this place with a process—
Ms Cheyne: A point of order.
MR ASSISTANT SPEAKER: A point of order, Ms Cheyne.
Ms Cheyne: Mr Assistant Speaker, Mr Hanson has now used a number of terms which are unparliamentary, including “liar”, “lied” and “misled”.
MR ASSISTANT SPEAKER: Mr Hanson, do you want to withdraw?
MR HANSON: I am certainly happy to withdraw the word “lied”, in terms of parliamentary language; I am happy to withdraw that. In terms of “misled” and that she has misled the community, that is not deemed unparliamentary. If I had said she had misled the Assembly, it would be, but I am certainly happy to withdraw the word “lied”, Mr Assistant Speaker.
MR ASSISTANT SPEAKER: Okay, Mr Hanson.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video