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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 10 Hansard (3 September) . . Page.. 2986 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

There is a lot more to be done, Madam Deputy Speaker, before we end up with a new Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement, but this Government has a commitment to fairness and equity in all things it does. There is a lot more work to be done before we actually end up with that new agreement and, I would think, a lot more work to be done by the States and Territories before we actually end up with the final Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement.

MS TUCKER (5.10): I will speak briefly on this. We have already made quite clear in this place our concerns about the proposed reforms of public housing. I am interested to hear Mr Stefaniak make a commitment to equity, greater choice and justice in the availability of housing in the ACT. However, there are still serious issues that we are concerned about and that the community is concerned about, because these proposed reforms, as they are, obviously mean that you can end up with a totally different system of housing.

You talk about greater choice when you talk about more availability of private housing. I can see how there are several possibilities that could eventuate out of this new system, because if you are going to have greater choice, as you call it, you have people moving into the private rental market. There are a number of reasons why people could do that and might choose to do that. They include: If maintenance is not kept up to scratch; if the house is not very warm; if it is not well insulated. If you are not really committed to making your public housing stock high standard and the standard does not stay high, then obviously you could have people moving out into the private market for those reasons, which would be an opportunity for you, of course, to sell that housing and claim that it is not actually required any more.

The other issue about private housing, of course, is that it is very difficult to see how it could be budget neutral. If you are offering to pay equally to subsidise the rent of private houses, regardless of where they are, it is hard to see how you could possibly do that and remain budget neutral, as these reforms are meant to be. There is, indeed, a great concern that we will get into the situation where public housing tenants - or subsidised tenants, as they will become then - will be forced to move out to where rent is cheaper, because the Commonwealth Government will not be able to keep this as a budget neutral exercise. It is clear that it is going to be extremely difficult for them to do that. That is another reason that the community and the Greens are very concerned about what the final outcome of this new system will be.

You have said that you cannot tell the difference between public and private housing, because we have such a high standard. I can tell you that you can tell the difference when you are a tenant because of the way you are treated. I think that is another aspect of this whole discussion which cannot be forgotten, because people in public housing do regard those houses as their homes; they feel that they can hang a picture or that they can change the garden. Anyone who has experienced rental in the private market knows that you can be quite traumatised by the approach of the agent at the time. I know that, particularly, families with small children can find it very difficult, because there is this tendency to expect them to live in a way which may not always be appropriate for that family. This is definitely about the values of an agent being imposed quite unrealistically on a family with small children. This is not what we want to have in our community.

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