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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 7 Hansard (29 June) . . Page.. 2326 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

carriage of the task force has shifted to youth services in the Department of Education and Community Services, raising even more questions about the seriousness with which it will be carried forward.

In the past year, as members know, I chaired the select committee inquiring into the role of public housing in the ACT, which reported unanimously in March. This inquiry was a product of surprise announcements in last year's budget on policy changes that will have a profound effect on the lives of Canberra's poorest people. The government has yet to respond to the committee's report. No provisions for implementing any of the recommendations can be found in the budget. We have been told that this is because the budget was in place before that report was tabled. Given that the committee's report on the draft budget appeared at around the same time as the public housing report was tabled, many of the recommendations could have been taken on board, unless the draft budget process was never intended to influence the final budget.

A budget is about the allocation and management of resources, and it is also a consultative and collaborative process upon which we will build social capital and trust. It is not simply a question of doing a few nice things but of building a partnership between government, disenfranchised members of society and the organisations that work with them. We see a failure in both domains in housing.

The transfer of public housing stock to community housing presents a case in point. The community housing model works well in the ACT because of the diligence, participation and commitment of the personnel and the organisations involved. However, it is not the same as public housing. The mix of tenants and the interest of those tenants in, or their commitment to, their living situations are different. Moving so much public housing stock into community housing looks like little more than shifting the resources and responsibility for managing public housing into the community housing sector, or another exercise in outsourcing. I believe it risks permanent damage to a community resource.

The idea of community housing needs to be respected for what it is. There is a real fear in the community that this could be setting up community housing initiatives to fail. Security of tenure is a key concern. I have already addressed that. It is particularly concerning that security of tenure would be removed in the community housing sector too.

The housing figures in this budget are built upon presumptions of $30 per week minimum rent and a rent charge of 25 per cent of income for residents earning more than $100 a week. There is no provision for emergency relief for tenants, while the rental bond loan scheme is no more. As was reported by the public housing committee, it still appears that these decisions have been made without any research on or analysis of the impact of such initiatives on people struggling with poverty. Evidence that came to our committee on that subject from people who work in the field, as well as from the federal department that helps recent immigrants, was quite overwhelming.

The processes of housing could be improved. I understand why the government is changing the infrastructure for housing in some areas, but the sudden announcement to residents of the sale of Mawson Gardens and the major changes to the Red Hill complex simply increased the insecurity and distrust felt by many tenants. There is also concern

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