Page 2660 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 25 August 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
We are also conscious of the fact that Housing Trust tenants by definition are often at the lower end of the economic spectrum. While $12 may not seem a lot for a smoke detector it may, for Housing Trust tenants, be a substantial chunk of a week's pension income. I have asked my officers to investigate the possibility of the Government bulk purchasing some of the small detectors and then offering them to trust tenants at, effectively, cost price. So we might be able to knock the cost down to the $7 margin. I am not sure of the economics of it. It may be that the big bulk-selling discount stores already have the items down at just about as cheap as they will come. When I purchased three late last year for my place I recall paying about $20 per unit, and I now see them at about $12 standard and $10 on special. It may well be that the big discount stores themselves are virtually offering them at cost price anyway, and that would be a commendable retailing practice by them. But we will investigate that.
Madam Speaker, fire protection is important. The Government would say that we really need to encourage people to take responsibility themselves for fire protection, with assistance from the Government through schemes like free installation. Incidentally, I think we are the only Government that is offering that. I am not aware of any other State which is using its Fire Brigade to make this free installation offer. Also, we are going to look further at reducing the cost. But we do not support the Government installing the $12 smoke detector in all Housing Trust properties - not because we are not concerned about our tenants, but because we think that installing them in public housing means that the Government is assuming responsibility and we just cannot take that risk on the basis of the $12 smoke detector. If we are going to do it we need to do it properly with the permanent mains wired facility.
There is an argument that the Government should make it a condition for all building approvals that such a device be installed in all new housing, whether it be government housing, private rental housing or privately owned housing. That is a matter that is under consideration around Australia. I think Victoria may have moved in that direction, but so far other States have not. Again, that is an issue about home affordability, and is it sensible to add another couple of hundred dollars to the price of a home for a young family seeking to purchase an affordable entry level home in the newer suburbs of Canberra; or are we better, as the Government now thinks, to keep promoting fire safety and individual responsibility for awareness of fire safety through the use of the cheap, readily available and freely installed smoke detectors? Madam Speaker, I formally move the following amendment circulated in my name:
Omit all words after "Assembly", substitute "supports the Minister for Housing and Community Services in his continued promotion of the installation of smoke detectors in all Canberra residences, with free installation by the ACT Fire Brigade, and calls on him to investigate arrangements to facilitate easier access to smoke detectors for Housing Trust tenants".
MR MOORE (12.24): Madam Speaker, when Mr Cornwell originally flagged the idea that he was going to move this motion, as I heard in the public media, I must say that I was attracted to the idea because clearly his concerns are the danger to people and danger to property. I think that the amendment put by the Minister takes those concerns into account and deals with them.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .