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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 7 Hansard (18 June) . . Page.. 1800 ..

MR HIRD (continuing):

a definition of "market rent". The provision for rent rebates for those who cannot afford to pay market rents remains. The remaining amendments, Mr Speaker, rectify certain administrative and technical inconsistencies, including provisions relating to consistencies with ACT Government financial management reforms. I congratulate our Minister, Mr Stefaniak, and I commend the Bill to the Assembly.

MR STEFANIAK (Minister for Education and Training and Minister for Housing and Family Services) (11.39), in reply: I thank members for their comments. I want to mention a number of things. As Ms Reilly has correctly stated, housing has changed considerably in the ACT. Yes, we were very much a company town, and that is changing too. For example, back in 1950, I think, some 96 per cent of all housing in the ACT was owned by the Commonwealth. It was public housing. We are down now to some 12.8 per cent, but we do have a very large public housing stock. We are the largest landlord in the Territory and, with the exception of the Northern Territory, we have a much greater percentage of housing stock than any other State.

Mr Speaker, perhaps I should apologise to Ms Reilly for not ranting and raving more in relation to this Bill. I did not, so there we go. I am glad that she does concede, at least, that there has been broad discussion about the Commonwealth-State agreement in the community, and in the community affected by public housing especially. I think that is terribly important because, putting it at its best, the new agreement will certainly give a lot more flexibility to the State or Territory in terms of the provision of public housing and the Commonwealth becomes more the money supplier to make up the gap between what the market rent is and what the subsidised rent is for the tenants. That flexibility is important for the ACT especially in regard to such things as maintenance, because one of our biggest problems is maintaining our stock. A lot of our stock, some 50 per cent, is over 20 years old. Canberra is ageing, and a lot of the buildings are ageing. That certainly does apply to housing stock, so maintenance is always going to be a problem. Flexible delivery of housing services, and especially greater flexibility in such things as the provision of maintenance, I think, will be very important.

Ms Reilly was somewhat concerned about the objects, in that there are certain things that are not in this Bill. I think her concern can be allayed somewhat by the fact that this Bill is an amendment to a principal Act and, as Mr Moore has correctly pointed out, the objects are quite comprehensive. Objects, by their very nature, are meant to cover all relevant areas and necessarily have to be somewhat broad. When one goes through the objects - I do not propose to do so because they are there for all members to see - they are broad, but they certainly show the commitment of this Government and this Assembly, and I thank members, to those very important objects behind the provision of public housing. Probably one of the main objects is "to maximise the opportunities for everyone in the Territory to have access to housing which is affordable, secure and appropriate to their needs". That applies to welfare housing and to other types of public housing. To an extent, I suppose, one could even tack that onto other types of housing as well.

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