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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 5 Hansard (11 May) . . Page.. 1436 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

their educational and employment needs, and their emotional and social needs. People who do not feel secure or safe in their housing are most likely to be stressed and disempowered, and therefore less likely to take a positive direction in their lives.

The government claimed that its proposals were about efficiency and better targeting. Unfortunately, though, the committee was not reassured that the government had actually really worked out what the impact would be on certain groups. It is a very obvious fact that disadvantage in our community is not solely related to income. There are groups in our community who will never be particularly welcome in the private rental market. It is very important that any policies which are designed to target assistance better have a very well-researched understanding of the various broad factors which can create disadvantage. The government does say that there will be flexibility in administering the policy, but, unfortunately, the process they envisage is not very open or transparent.

We also must not forget that, unfortunately, Commonwealth funding is decreasing for this essential social service, and consequently the states and territories are facing an additional financial burden. If as a result of this decreasing commitment from the federal government our governments choose to reduce funding to public housing, the community needs to be made fully aware of this policy position, and the implications for our community also need to be fully understood. It is shockingly short-sighted to portray such an important community service as just another cost burden on government. It is an essential service which governments are elected to provide. The community in Australia generally does not expect people to have to be homeless or to experience severe housing stress.

The recommendations of this committee could be divided into two categories. Some recommendations respond directly to the policy proposals with a negative or positive response, and the other recommendations basically ask the government to do the work necessary to show what the implications for disadvantaged people will be if their policies proceed. We have specifically linked some of these recommendations with the work of the poverty task group. There is obviously a great opportunity here for government to broaden its knowledge and understanding of issues related to poverty in Canberra.

I will not go through all the recommendations in detail. Interested members will no doubt read the report. I will summarise the committee's response to the major issues.

Security of tenure must be maintained until the government undertakes a much more rigorous assessment of people likely to be affected, and this assessment must be brought before the Assembly for debate. This is, after all, a minority government. They are supposed to get the support of at least nine of us before they re-shape the ACT's social services. It must be a debate which is based on information, not just politics and spin.

The committee has also recommended that security of tenure stay with community housing tenants. The government decided to redefine community housing by removing tenure and outsourcing management of a large amount of existing public housing to the community housing agency. This is pretty insulting to the community housing community, who have a strong sense of the unique model of housing that community housing offers.

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