Page 931 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 17 June 1992

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


How many people would have moved into a trust property as unencumbered tenants - that is, no rent rebate, which, of course, is part of the eligibility criteria - before they were 25 years of age? I submit, therefore, that this is the major reason why so few have sought a purchase under the 10-year eligibility rule.

If the occupancy criterion is reduced to five years, then it follows that the tenant could be 30 before commencing the tenancy with the opportunity still to buy at age 35. I think it is a more realistic age for tenancy and, financially, such people would be better off. Their children are older, they are in more secure employment and they have probably put some more money away in savings. While I do not doubt for a moment that people beyond age 35 would consider buying their government house, I think there is also a cut-off age beyond which people opt for caution because they believe that they will be too old to service their mortgage repayments. It seems to me, therefore, that the age between 30 and 40 is the optimum, and from representations I have received, as I mentioned earlier, it is the people of that age grouping that are being denied the opportunity to purchase because of the 10-year limit, in my experience.

Apart from the tenants' satisfaction of owning their own homes - a point supported by the Housing Trust itself - what is in these sales for the Housing Trust? Essentially, funds to buy or build other properties. Further, the government houses that they sell will be sold at current market value, which also represents to the trust a substantial profit because most of these will be in established areas. I believe that the trust can also benefit from savings on maintenance of these properties, because the older the stock the more maintenance, or perhaps even upgrading, is required. Further, the trust can benefit from interest accruing from its HomeBuyer loan scheme if the tenant elects to take out this loan with the trust to purchase the house. The result of all these benefits to the trust is that more of the estimated 5,775 people on the trust's waiting list at 4 May 1992 - I am indebted to the Canberra Times for that information - can be accommodated in other trust houses.

It is regrettable, Madam Speaker, that the Housing Trust itself does not seem to recognise the sense of what I am saying, despite the publication of its promising little brochure "Buying your ACT Government Home". I wonder, in fact, whether it should not be called, "Buying your ACT Government Home Maybe", because the trust has a hidden but very important extra restriction on sales here which is not among the three prominently listed in the brochure. That one that I refer to is the limiting of trust house sales in certain areas because of "low concentrations of public housing", or in bureauspeak, "suburbs where stock holdings are low". This is social engineering at its worst because, in its mania for an egalitarian society, the Government, through the trust, is disadvantaging the very people it purports to be helping. I refer to the people who wish to buy their government house, having lived in the area, having established friendships, and whose children go to the local school, et cetera. They have established an infrastructure there.

I also refer to the people on the waiting list for whom the sale of the property in an established area, or even perhaps, Mr Connolly, in an area with low concentrations of public housing, could provide funds for one-and-a-half or maybe two houses in newer suburbs. Why condemn almost 6,000 people to a longer period on the waiting list because of some sort of fixation with symmetry, for an egalitarian social mix? If you doubt my claim, Madam Speaker, that the Government has instructed the trust to exploit this fourth restriction - that is, the low concentrations of public housing, suburbs where public housing stocks are


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