Page 1043 - Week 04 - Thursday, 1 April 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Connolly: Because they want to come and live under this benign Labor Government. That is why they want to come here.
MR CORNWELL: Well, maybe. I put to you that the figures Ms Szuty has put forward could be interpreted as we wish. This is one of the problems of using too many figures in these debates.
Mr Moore commented that we do not have welfare housing here; we have public housing. All I can say is that I am confused, and this is perhaps another reason for an inquiry. The trust itself does not seem to know - never mind whether it is welfare housing or public housing - how many people are receiving rental rebates. You can use whatever nomenclature you like; it does not matter whether it is public housing or welfare housing. The fact remains that one figure indicates that 80 per cent of Housing Trust tenants are receiving rental rebate and another figure tells me that 84.4 per cent are receiving rental rebate.
Mr De Domenico: It might be a typographical error.
MR CORNWELL: I will be coming to that shortly. We have either 20 per cent of people not receiving rebate or 15.6 per cent. I know not, but I find it passing strange that the Housing Trust does not appear to know either.
However, that is hardly surprising. To refer back to Mr De Domenico's earlier comment, I think it is fair to say that one would have to question the statistics provided by the trust when they can make a typographical error of $100m in a trust submission to the Industry Commission inquiry - the very inquiry whose findings Ms Szuty wants us to await. That should be very interesting, considering that the information has been passed forward to the Industry Commission that the amount of $186.78m in rent receivable by the Housing Trust was only $86.78m because we made a typo of $100m in a submission. If I can pick it up, in just looking through their submission, and put a question on the notice paper, why on earth could not the trust have responded and told the Industry Commission that they had made that mistake? I am confused as to how many people in public housing, to use the Government's words, are in receipt of a rebate.
Mr Lamont made some comments about changing the face of Canberra. Mr Lamont, I do not object to your committee's examination of these things. I think it is very sensible and very fair. But I have raised before questions about single parents living in flat complexes. Mr Connolly disagrees with me, but certainly the representations received in my office would indicate that many of those people would prefer to be out in the suburbs - not marginalised, Mr Connolly - where their children can play with their peers rather than being cooped up in flats, where there are, unfortunately, some undesirable tenants.
We have had this one out, too. I want to make it quite clear that I do not believe that the vast majority of decent Housing Trust tenants should have to put up with - and I will repeat the phrase - a minority of social miscreants. It is a shame and a pity, and I would strongly advocate that the trust improve their procedures for routine, regular inspections of the trust properties, rather than using crisis
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .