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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 9 Hansard (28 August) . . Page.. 2681 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

I have been following with great concern the developments in housing, not only over the past couple of weeks but since my arrival in the Assembly. I have taken many calls and letters from public housing tenants who are facing difficulties or people who are unable to get public housing. I think that to say that all is rosy, even without further cuts or reform, is quite misleading. We are talking about the most vulnerable people in our community. Access to affordable, appropriate and secure housing is one of the most fundamental rights, first and foremost because it reduces poverty. The social benefits from having high-quality housing stock are also widely felt through reduced crime rates, greater social cohesion, stronger communities and so on.

Mrs Carnell: We all agree with that.

Mr Moore: We are all agreed on that.

MS TUCKER: I am glad members agree. That is why it is so perplexing to hear the arguments put forward. This motion, I repeat, is about guaranteeing some kind of safety net. None of the arguments and none of the presentations from this Government have given any assurance at all that that safety net is being met. No wonder people are getting worried.

Many of the reforms that have been driven by the Hilmer report and associated micro-economic reforms are very dangerous if they undermine the public housing system. Even the Industry Commission, which is not noted for putting social considerations above economic ones, concluded in its report on public housing:

Without adequate public supply, rents could be expected to rise because private supply is unlikely to be responsive to price, especially in the short-term.

They also said:

[If public supply fell] low-income people would bear the cost. After-housing poverty would rise. Overcrowding would increase to the detriment of health. Social problems could arise at a cost to the community generally ...

It is this last point that made the Industry Commission realise that an adequate supply of quality public housing is essential from an economic point of view. It is critical, therefore, that we maintain at least the current levels of public housing stock as a percentage of total stock. In 1991 the proportion of public to private housing was roughly 39 per cent.

This is why we have added a paragraph (4) in the amendment that I will be moving to this motion. It seeks to get a guarantee that the Government will maintain current levels of public housing as a percentage of rental housing in the ACT and that they will commit to expanding public and community housing. Mr Moore saw a contradiction in that. Once again, it is a quite absurd thing to argue. The essence of this is quite clear.

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