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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 9 Hansard (28 August) . . Page.. 2677 ..

Mr Berry: You will have to make the point more firmly, Mr Speaker.

MR SPEAKER: Mr Moore, relevance. We are discussing a motion on housing.

MR MOORE: Mr Speaker, just to clarify the point, I heard the point you made, but I believe that in dealing with this issue as an issue which affects the budget it is important to set the parameters as to how the budget is affected and how actions of the different members can affect the budget. That is the point.

The issue of housing becomes very interesting when we also see the foreshadowed amendment of the Greens. It is a very interesting amendment. It seeks to add to the motion the following words:

the current levels of public housing stock as a percentage of rental housing are maintained and the Government commits to further expansion of public and community housing.

In fact, it is a contradictory amendment, because it is likely that we will see a drop in the level of housing in the ACT, particularly if the Federal Government keeps ripping into Canberra in the way it is. Under such circumstances there would actually be a reduction in the amount of rental housing. To retain the percentage and, at the same time, to commit to further expansion is contradictory. There is a problem with that amendment as well. I take the opportunity to say that now, so that I will not need to speak again.

Mr Speaker, it is very important that we retain a system of public housing in the ACT. I have spoken in this chamber on a number of occasions about the difference between public housing and welfare housing. It is very important that we retain a system of public housing and do not marginalise our public housing tenants. I continue to hold to that important principle. I do not believe that this motion will achieve that.

MRS CARNELL (Chief Minister) (11.48): Mr Speaker, I think one of the things that we had better get back to in this debate is what the motion actually says. I would like to read the preamble to Ms Reilly's motion. It says:

Noting that changes to the funding of public housing programs by the Commonwealth Government for the ACT in the 1996-97 and following years will allow the ACT government to sell public housing without the requirements as contained in the previous Commonwealth State Housing Agreement that the revenue from such sales be returned to public housing programs for the development of further public housing programs ...

How can you support a motion that is fundamentally wrong? Before you even start, Ms Reilly is wrong, because the Commonwealth-State agreement for 1996-97 does require - not does not require - any money that we get from selling public housing to be put back into the purchasing of replacement stock, upgrading or other purposes. Fundamentally, Ms Reilly, your motion is incorrect. You cannot possibly support a motion that is incorrect.

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