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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 9 Hansard (28 August) . . Page.. 2682 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

It has actually been the feeling of the national peak organisation for housing tenants, Shelter, that this is a way that formulation of current levels could be set. They believe that it provides the strongest guarantee for ensuring that low-income consumers have viable options for getting affordable housing. It may not be perfect but, hell, it is a start. Instead of picking on whether you are going to interpret "maintain" as "at least maintain" or not, let us address the real issues.

It is worth reiterating that the private rental market is not an alternative to public housing. Private rental investment cannot provide an adequate return for investors to be able to adequately provide quality and affordable housing for low-income households. It is Australia's public housing authorities that are effectively providing affordable housing for low-income earners. On average, in Australia 18.9 per cent of gross income is paid in rent by public housing tenants. This is still 8 per cent over the average cost of housing for Australians, but it is well below the 31.3 per cent being paid by low-income earners in the private rental market.

I think my previous comments make it quite clear why we are supporting this motion and why it is essential that public housing stock be retained as a proportion of total rental stock, but I will add a few more points more specific to our amendments and specific to the Government's arguments. While we are supporting this motion, it also has to be put on the record that it was the Federal Labor Government that initiated the current market reforms that are occurring not only in housing but across a whole range of human services. While we may be debating the implementation of certain reforms imposing market principles on housing, it is not something that has emerged just because there are Liberal governments in power.

Yesterday the Government was arguing that the cuts have no impact, because there is still a big building program. Firstly, it is clear that even from what the Government was saying yesterday building is only replacing sales. How can a $10.4m cut not affect maintenance and accessibility to housing? It is 25 per cent of the budget. The Government must acknowledge that even if the cut will not affect delivery of Housing's programs, which I very much doubt, this money could have been used to reduce the waiting list, which, as we heard yesterday, is quite significant. Another statistic worth remembering is that the incidence of housing need in the ACT is comparable to that in other States, at around 16 per cent. It is also estimated that the number of households in housing need will increase from 14,400 in 1996 to 16,200 in 2001. The Government also said that it was inflexible to ask the Government to replace every dwelling that is sold. That is not what is being asked. The intent of this motion is to ensure that the proceeds from sales of public housing stock go back into the overall housing budget in the future.

As for paragraph (2) of Ms Reilly's motion, I think it is perhaps poorly worded, because the Government will argue that the mix should never be fixed in concrete. However, I think we can take the intent of Ms Reilly's motion to be that an appropriate mix be maintained or that the mix be improved in favour of the poorest tenants having - - -

Mrs Carnell: That is not what it says, though.

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