Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 11 Hansard (30 November) . . Page.. 3512 ..
MR MOORE: I thank Mr Osborne for the question. Next week I will be making a major statement in response to the Select Committee on Public Housing. Apart from that, I will try to deal with some of the questions asked. Recently I announced as a housing policy that we would move away from bed-sitters and single-bedroom units so that the base level unit of public housing was a two-bedroom unit. This will mean that a large number of the people you are talking about will be able to manage their family in a reasonable way, but perhaps not people who have a large number of children they have to care for. Each application for housing is considered on its merits by Housing. We are very aware that people provide housing under a number of different arrangements. That is something we will have to move on.
I turn to the question about payments. Ms Tucker and I have had some discussion about a possible disallowance motion, which I understand she has now withdrawn, with regard to changes in the way the Commonwealth pay their allowances and the impact that has on ACT Housing. It is a particularly complex matter. Mr Osborne, I would be delighted to offer briefings to you or any other member on that matter. I believe I have answered your question, but if I have missed something I will be happy to take it on notice.
MR OSBORNE: I ask a supplementary question. I do not want the minister to inform us of what he is going to announce next week. My constituents think it is unfair that they are forced to pay extra rent because they are receiving extra money. My information is that Housing does not take into consideration the number of children when they are assessing an application for a house. I am happy to work with your office on it, and we might come back to it later.
MR MOORE: A number of members work through my office to ask questions about specific families and, as was the case when Mr Smyth had responsibility for housing, the departmental liaison officers work to find information as quickly as they can. My understanding is that that works very effectively. In specific cases we are always willing to try to find out information for members and to resolve the matters. We will continue to try to do that. I realise that you asked a generic question based on a specific example, but if you can tell us about a specific case we can deal with it.
MR WOOD: My question is to Mr Humphries. He might have expected it. It is on legal aid. If you read the Canberra Times-I do not know whether this Chief Minister reads it or not-you will have noticed an article today stating that the Commonwealth may not be able to recover some $8.7 million because the alleged thief cannot obtain legal aid and the trial cannot proceed at this stage. The article goes on to say that the ACT, specifically the Attorney, has not applied to the Commonwealth for additional legal aid funding that may be available. I ask for verification here. If the Commonwealth has established a contingency fund to supplement legal aid funds in lengthy and expensive trials, have you asked the Commonwealth for supplementary funds in this instance?
MR HUMPHRIES
: I did see the article in the Canberra Times today. I certainly am aware of the pressure on the Legal Aid Commission which emanates from what are now designated as Commonwealth matters causing a strain on the available budget of the commission. That particularly relates, I understand, to a relatively small number of trials on which a large amount of money is expended. I am not aware of an approach having
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .