Mr HATTON - 1995-11-30
Mr HATTON (Attorney-General)(by leave): Mr Speaker, I rise to respond to comments made during the adjournment debate last evening by the member for Fannie Bay. She accused me of pork-barrelling my electorate over the installation of Vitacall alarm systems in the Hazel Court/Reynolds Court area at Coconut Grove. As the member for Millner pointed out last night, that area is not in my electorate. At that time, it happened to be in the electorate of one Ken Parish.
Ms Martin: You were the Minister for Lands, Housing and Local Government.
Mr HATTON: Yes. Do you know what? They were Housing Commission flats. Do you know who was living there? Aged pensioners.
Ms Martin: We know. What about the assessment? They are very expensive.
Members interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr HATTON: As a matter of fact, an assessment was made at these facilities over several months. I do not apologise in the least for having installed a very important security alarm system for aged pensioners. It so happens that the Hazel Court/Reynolds Court area and, to an extent, the Litchfield Court area, which is a major concentration of Housing Commission accommodation, is gradually developing into what is in effect a Housing Commission aged residential retirement village. The facilities being installed there are consistent with providing a safe environment for aged pensioners. I do not apologise at all. I have been accused of pork-barrelling, but I do not normally pork-barrel in Labor electorates. Ministers tend not to do that.
Mr Ede: We know that. Not a yard of bitumen has been laid in my electorate since ...
Mr HATTON: I might mention that, at the same time, I authorised 46 units to go into the Tuckwell Court area.
Page 1116
Ms Martin: They should be assessed individually. They are too expensive for that. You have other elderly people ...
Mr HATTON: You are wrong actually.
Ms Martin: My advice is that they are.
Mr HATTON: You have been given bad advice. It actually costs $1.25 a week each to operate them for the first 5 years.
Ms Martin interjecting.
Mr HATTON: I am telling what the cost is. That is the advice I received at the time.
The member referred also to a lady in her electorate who had sought this facility and who had been rejected. It is interesting, in terms of personal interest, that I think she was referring to Mrs Connie Bleakley.
Ms Martin: I said that she is now in the system, and I said that that is terrific.
Mr HATTON: I wrote to Mrs Bleakley on 3 June explaining why we could not agree. The main reason was that she was not in Housing Commission accommodation. I would love to provide Vitacall to the facility where Mrs Bleakley lives. She happens to live at 25 Stokes Street, Parap. She may want to ask the member for Wanguri whether he would think it appropriate for us to provide, through the government, these facilities there. I am sure he would be happy to support it because it happens to be the Masonic Memorial Village in which I do have an indirect personal interest.
At the time, they went into a Labor electorate. We did not provide them at the Masonic Memorial Village because it was not Housing Commission accommodation. I hope that the current Minister for Housing continues the program of installing Vitacall in Housing Commission accommodation where it is viable, and it is viable particularly where there are concentrations of aged people. It has dramatically improved the sense of security for aged residents in that accommodation.
If the member for Fannie Bay wants to accuse me of pork-barrelling in my electorate, she ought to be sure that it is happening actually in my electorate. For her then to criticise me for not installing something in another electorate, which happened to be the Chief Minister's electorate at the time, and into a unit in which I had an indirect personal interest leaves me unable to understand her logic at all.
Page 1117
Ms Martin: You were the Minister for Lands, Housing and Local Government.
Mr HATTON: Yes. Do you know what? They were Housing Commission flats. Do you know who was living there? Aged pensioners.
Ms Martin: We know. What about the assessment? They are very expensive.
Members interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr HATTON: As a matter of fact, an assessment was made at these facilities over several months. I do not apologise in the least for having installed a very important security alarm system for aged pensioners. It so happens that the Hazel Court/Reynolds Court area and, to an extent, the Litchfield Court area, which is a major concentration of Housing Commission accommodation, is gradually developing into what is in effect a Housing Commission aged residential retirement village. The facilities being installed there are consistent with providing a safe environment for aged pensioners. I do not apologise at all. I have been accused of pork-barrelling, but I do not normally pork-barrel in Labor electorates. Ministers tend not to do that.
Mr Ede: We know that. Not a yard of bitumen has been laid in my electorate since ...
Mr HATTON: I might mention that, at the same time, I authorised 46 units to go into the Tuckwell Court area.
Page 1116
Ms Martin: They should be assessed individually. They are too expensive for that. You have other elderly people ...
Mr HATTON: You are wrong actually.
Ms Martin: My advice is that they are.
Mr HATTON: You have been given bad advice. It actually costs $1.25 a week each to operate them for the first 5 years.
Ms Martin interjecting.
Mr HATTON: I am telling what the cost is. That is the advice I received at the time.
The member referred also to a lady in her electorate who had sought this facility and who had been rejected. It is interesting, in terms of personal interest, that I think she was referring to Mrs Connie Bleakley.
Ms Martin: I said that she is now in the system, and I said that that is terrific.
Mr HATTON: I wrote to Mrs Bleakley on 3 June explaining why we could not agree. The main reason was that she was not in Housing Commission accommodation. I would love to provide Vitacall to the facility where Mrs Bleakley lives. She happens to live at 25 Stokes Street, Parap. She may want to ask the member for Wanguri whether he would think it appropriate for us to provide, through the government, these facilities there. I am sure he would be happy to support it because it happens to be the Masonic Memorial Village in which I do have an indirect personal interest.
At the time, they went into a Labor electorate. We did not provide them at the Masonic Memorial Village because it was not Housing Commission accommodation. I hope that the current Minister for Housing continues the program of installing Vitacall in Housing Commission accommodation where it is viable, and it is viable particularly where there are concentrations of aged people. It has dramatically improved the sense of security for aged residents in that accommodation.
If the member for Fannie Bay wants to accuse me of pork-barrelling in my electorate, she ought to be sure that it is happening actually in my electorate. For her then to criticise me for not installing something in another electorate, which happened to be the Chief Minister's electorate at the time, and into a unit in which I had an indirect personal interest leaves me unable to understand her logic at all.
Page 1117
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016