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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 7 Hansard (18 June) . . Page.. 1796 ..

MS REILLY (continuing):

between any Commonwealth and State governments as to who has responsibility for children under 18 and over 16. This obviously is an area of great strife because quite a number of children have nowhere to live, both in the ACT and in the rest of Australia. It would be good if we could give more attention to this matter, rather than attaching a tacky little clause to another one for convenience.

I think this indicates some of the hastiness in the preparation of this amendment Bill, and I think that is quite sad. The attitude seems to be, "Let us put it up quickly. We have to sign by 1 July. We need to have access to this money. Let us get on with it", without the Government thinking through what a commitment to the provision of housing in the ACT is. Why do they not want to spell this out, I wonder. It would be useful if we knew some of the detail of what they are going to do. Without a doubt, the ACT cannot be left out of the signing of the draft agreement. This draft agreement seems to vary according to whom you are talking to, on which day, and whether it is going to be a one-year agreement or a three-year agreement. I understand that at the moment it is only a one-year agreement. I think this will be useful for the ACT Government in considering what their commitment is to the provision of housing. It will give time to the Government to be more up front about their commitment.

Government housing has a big role and is a major part of our budget. It is an essential service that we all need, and I think there needs to be more discussion and more consultation with the community than the Minister has done in this situation. His modesty, obviously, is commendable; but I think it would have been useful if on this issue he had been just a little more gregarious and had talked a little more to people about some of the provisions. There has been discussion of what is going to be in the agreement - there has been a quite broad discussion of that - but there is a difference between a broad discussion about a Commonwealth agreement and what will be in an ACT Act. I think it would have been useful to have more of that. As you know - you have talked about it yourselves - the transparency of the administrative process is very important, and in this instance it is not there.

The Minister has to sign this agreement by 1 July. The ACT has to be part of the new housing agreement because we have to continue our commitment and our role in the provision of housing to people in need in the ACT. We are going to be a participant in this agreement. It is important that we do not put up any barriers to our participation. If we took more account of some of the parts of this new agreement, I think this would guide us in some of the things we do. I would suggest that the Minister do that and not hide some of the parts of that agreement in the way that he is. I would suggest that we support this Bill as it is at this time, but note with some sadness some of the omissions and the lack of detail in the Bill.

MS TUCKER (11.26): The Greens will not be opposing this Bill, although I must say that I do have some reservations and uncertainties about the implications of the new arrangements for housing provision in the ACT. I understand that there is a move towards giving States more power in relation to the provision of housing, in line with recommendations of the Industry Commission report on public housing. There may well be some benefits from allowing the States greater flexibility in the delivery of housing; but there could well be some costs, particularly for people with the greatest need.

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