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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 7 Hansard (25 June) . . Page.. 2132 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

doing so because the margins in the ACT are so low". Indeed, Mr Speaker, for two years Gull considered their position and only now have decided, apparently with some change in the marketplace, to proceed. That was the only player interested, when we came to office, in continuing to take up any of the sites that had been released by the Labor Party.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Proposed expenditure - Department of Urban Services, $195,362,000 (comprising net cost of outputs, $156,359,000; capital injection, $32,494,000; and payments on behalf of Territory, $6,509,000) - agreed to.

Part 11 - InTACT

Proposed expenditure - InTACT, $617,000 (comprising net cost of outputs, $617,000) - agreed to.

Part 12 - ACT Housing

Proposed expenditure - ACT Housing, $30,764,000 (comprising net cost of outputs, $30,764,000)

MS REILLY (6.00): There are just a few issues that I would like to raise in relation to housing and the housing budget. Some of these were canvassed in the Estimates Committee in interesting ways. It is important that we remember some of the things that have happened in the housing budget in the last year and this year and what is proposed for the future. One of the most amazing things that have happened in public housing, since I have been in this place at least, is last year's generous hand-back of $10.4m out of the housing budget to Costello's black hole - usually called the ACT's State financial contribution. We gave away $10.4m last year. Unfortunately, the Chief Minister failed to consult her Housing Minister when she gave back the $10.4m, but he probably knows about it now. Then we have the recognition that this year we have clawed back $5.4m. That still means a loss of $5m out of the budget for housing.

So, over the last two years we have carefully given away to the Commonwealth $15.4m. At this point, the Commonwealth gives us back only $19m in grants. So, we are actually only about $4m up. Then in the Federal budget, which came out after the State budget, we find that we have lost a further $780,000. So, in fact, in its generosity, Mr Speaker, I would suggest that the Commonwealth has given us about $3m. We have lost a lot of money out of the housing budget.

The question that you have to ask is: Why has this Government decided that public tenants should take the whole burden of the ACT's State financial contribution? It is slightly unfair to make them pay it in one year. They are the ones who have to suffer the loss of money out of their budget in 1996-97. The Government does little this year to rectify it, because it still says that it should give another $5m this year. Why did you not look at other parts of the budget? What sorts of priorities do you have? Maybe the Government could look at the health budget, except that it is in a rather sick condition.

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