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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 9 Hansard (28 August) . . Page.. 2684 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

In conclusion, I would like to say that the Federal coalition promised that no housing trust tenant would be disadvantaged and that no new public tenant would pay more than 25 per cent of income in rent. The national housing strategy in 1992 also recommended to the Federal Government that by the year 2000 no low-income renter should be paying more than 25 per cent of income in rent. At the moment that promise seems about as hollow as the promise that no child will live in poverty, but it is something we should all be working towards. The ACT Government must reiterate this promise. By supporting this motion and these amendments, it could demonstrate such a commitment. For many Australians, securing public housing means the difference between poverty and survival. That is the critical issue here.

MR BERRY (12.11): Mr Speaker, one of the first things I want to deal with is the Minister's performance on this whole issue. We have had a confused mess arising from every statement that the Minister has made on the issue, one which would create a great deal of discontent and concern among public housing tenants. I think the Minister has suffered a major discredit because of his performance on this issue. He has not allayed concerns in the community about this Government's performance. It would be very difficult for him to do so, because the Government's position on public housing is something to be worried about.

In the past Mrs Carnell has made a great point about consultation on issues of concern about public housing. Where was the consultation on this issue when Mrs Carnell gave away $10.4m? Where was the consultation with representatives of public housing tenants? Mrs Carnell was dead quiet on that. The consultation myth that Mrs Carnell tries to promote is long dead. It is as dead as a dodo. The people of the ACT, in particular, public housing tenants, have been cheated. There is no question about that.

Mr Speaker, I will be moving an amendment shortly. It has been circulated in my name. I note that some people have said that they oppose it. Of course, you would expect the Government to oppose it. I want to deal with Mr Moore's comments. Mr Moore tries to relate this to his performance in education. Mr Moore has to accept responsibility for what this Government opposite has done in education. He was the one who supported this Chief Minister and if - - -

Mr De Domenico: Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I suggest that Mr Berry be asked to speak on the relevant topic, the housing motion, and not on Mr Moore's views on education.

MR SPEAKER: I draw your attention, Mr Berry, to the fact that I upheld your - - -

MR BERRY: Indeed. The same rules apply, Mr Speaker.

MR SPEAKER: That is exactly the point I am making. I upheld your point of order against Mr Moore about relevance. I am doing the same now.

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