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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 11 Hansard (5 November) . . Page.. 3647 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

If Mr X from Kambah has been in breach since 1979, I would agree with you that it is time that he was made to feel the force of the law. If he has not made any step towards remedying his breach within a reasonable period of time, then, yes, we will enforce in that situation. There is no sense of any leniency in this respect. I strongly believe that those provisions should be enforced. That is the message that I have sent to my department. If you have evidence of people being let off or laws not being enforced, then let me know about them and I will certainly follow them up.

MS REILLY: Mr Speaker, my question is to the Minister for Housing. In ACT Housing's spring newsletter, mailed out to all ACT Housing tenants, there was an article in relation to maintenance. It is on page 3, Mr Stefaniak. The article stated that this year's maintenance plan includes the painting of 3,000 properties externally; the painting of 1,000 properties internally; 70 wet upgrades, which means bathrooms, laundries and toilets; 70 kitchens; and 80 major upgrades, which means bathrooms, kitchens, toilets, total property repaint and in most cases new floor coverings. Minister, how did ACT Housing determine the priorities and numbers of particular maintenance to be undertaken this year?

MR STEFANIAK: Ms Reilly, as you are well aware, we have substantially increased the money available for maintenance - both planned maintenance and also more emergency maintenance - for this year. I think I have already given you figures on that. In fact, it is over $7m more. In terms of planned maintenance, I understand that total upgrades for kitchens and wet areas will actually involve about 220 properties. I am not quite sure whether that is reflected in your figures there; but it is probably pretty close to it. In fact, yes, I think it is. There are 220 properties there. I have not actually seen a copy of the newsletter yet; but, in terms of the 3,000 properties for external painting and the 1,000 properties for internal painting, they would be properties which are due, cyclically, to be painted.

There could be some other reasons as well why those properties might be on it. For example, as you are well aware, tenants often write in and indicate that they need some maintenance; that maintenance has not been done. Whilst it is desirable to paint properties every seven or eight years or whatever, occasionally I get complaints such as, "My property has not been painted in 10 years". Obviously, when an inspector goes out, checks that out, and says, "Yes, that property should be painted", that property is then included on a schedule. So, I think you would probably find a little bit of that as well. There would, undoubtedly, be some other reasons why some of those 3,000 properties for external painting and 1,000 properties for internal painting might well be included there. I will just see whether I have anything else which I can assist you on there.

Obviously, some of our properties are quite old. Forty per cent are over 30 years old. You may not be aware of this, because I do not think you were in the Assembly then; but in September 1995 ACT Housing tenants completed a survey on the condition of their properties. That information is, in fact, being used to better target improvements in capital works under a planned arrangement, being proactive rather than reactive.

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