ECHO7250: SOCIAL HOUSING IN LAUNCESTON

With regard to the Building Better Regions Funding, offered ostensibly to alleviate the impacts of drought, a spokesperson from Bridget Archer's office commented today that "Bridget has no reason to believe at this stage that the funding will not be expended by the Council". However, it was acknowledged there is a some uncertainty in regard to the future of the Paterson Street Central project.

Moreover, the spokesperson went on to say that if in the end the Council is not able to take up the grant, it would absolutely be Bridget Archer’s intention to advocate for the funding to remain in Launceston in some form.

The spokesperson also said that "we are not sure that it would be able to be directed to social housing, given the funding would likely still have to be used in accordance with the original BBRF grant guidelines." They went on to say that it "would be something Bridget would consider in the event that the funding was not taken up by Council. But to reiterate – at this stage, we have had no indication that the Council will not be using the funding."

"In her second term as Federal Member for Bass, Bridget intends to continue advocating on the issues of concern in our community, much as she did whilst in Government."

In addition, the spokesperson went on to say that the "issues of housing and homelessness are of particular interest to Bridget, and she will work to ensure that the Labor Government delivers on its commitments in this area, just as she will in areas of health, education, and other funding commitments they have made in our region."

Interestingly, earlier on in the election campaign Bridge Archer's office was promoting the notion that, paraphrased, 'housing, thus social housing, was not a matter for the Federal government.'

What is really hard to fathom here is how a Council might virtually give away a 'development opportunity' at ratepayers' expense and to a development that on any credible evidence was unlikely to deliver a fiscal dividend to the city's ratepayers.

Moreover, given other priorities, on what basis was the project founded?

Also, on what expert financial advice was council operating in regard to it purchase of the 'Birchalls' Building' at what seems to have been a price somewhat above 'market value'. That these things have not and apparently do not excite the interest of the various Tasmanian Ministers of Local Government is something that should be investigated given the impacts upon the city's ratepayers et al.