Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 5 Hansard (15 May) . . Page.. 1501 ..
MS REILLY: My question is to the Minister in his capacity as Minister for - - -
Mr Humphries: Which one?
MS REILLY: I am sorry; my question is to Mr Stefaniak in his capacity as Minister for Housing.
MR STEFANIAK: Hello there. Yes, Housing. All right.
MS REILLY: You have trouble remembering who I am as well. It is in his capacity as Minister for Housing, not his capacity as Minister for developing private rural enclaves. Minister, in his budget speech the Federal Treasurer, Mr Costello, announced that one of the savings measures would be the removal of payment of rent assistance to those sharing with public housing tenants. In Budget Paper No. 2, at page 133, it states that the introduction of this measure will require the cooperation of the State and Territory governments. Will you, Minister, be taking part in this mean-spirited measure which is targeted at those in the community on the lowest incomes; a measure which will force families apart and cause hardship to older people in our community, as their children will be forced to leave home and stop providing support, and force those with disabilities to live without support?
MR STEFANIAK: Mr Speaker, I will see whether I have something on this. No, I have not. If this is what I suspect it is, Mr Speaker, what the Commonwealth is concerned about is effectively double-dipping. People in public housing are entitled to be paying the normal rebated rent in the ACT. That is always less than 25 per cent of their income. If they have other people living there who also have an income, they pay 10 per cent of that particular income up to the market rent. The market rent is ultimately the most you can pay. Say you have a mother who is on some form of pension. She might pay 24 per cent of her actual income, that being her assessed rent for the premises. Let us say she has an 18-year-old son on unemployment relief of $160, or whatever, a week. He would be expected to pay 10 per cent of that - $16 a week - and that is the case for any income over $100 a week.
I understand from that part of the Federal budget that the Federal Government was giving some rent assistance to some people who could be accused effectively of being in a double-dipping type of situation. I understand that that is what they are trying to get around there. If that is what you are asking me, if that is the case, we would be very keen to see Federal dollars used as effectively as possible for the maximum benefit of Housing Trust tenants. If they are attempting to get around a double-dipping situation, that is not unreasonable.
MS REILLY: I would suggest to the Minister that he look at the papers again. He does talk about it as a savings measure.
MR SPEAKER: Is this a supplementary question?
MS REILLY: I am just trying to help the Minister in - - -
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .