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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 12 Hansard (7 December) . . Page.. 3831 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

the current regime you cannot request people to leave because they are underutilising a dwelling. It is not possible. That is part of the new so - called reforms, under which they will be able to move people they claim to be underoccupying a dwelling. You have to ask what this means for the efficiency of the general housing sector.

If Mr Hutchison is wrong in his letter or that is a misleading claim and the government is still claiming that some people will be able to retain existing tenant status if they meet certain criteria, then the question has to be asked: who will those lucky people be? Who will those people who do not have to lose their security of tenure be? That will be at the discretion of Housing.

I do not know whether Mr Moore understands the level of anxiety that exists when people believe they may lose their home. This is one of the issues that came through quite clearly in the committee process. People will not be seeking a transfer even if there is a really good reason, even if it is to be with loved ones or to live closer to their community support system. They will not be doing that, because they would much prefer to keep their security of tenure, which they will do as existing tenants. This whole reform process has set up two levels of experience of public tenants.

The first recommendation also made it quite clear that the government needed to support its proposal through some analysis of the impact. Mr Moore is talking to Mr Osborne. He did say that he would listen this. Please, Mr Osborne.

Mr Osborne: He is interrupting me. He is trying to make me not hear what you are saying, so I have asked him to stop.

MS TUCKER: Mr Osborne has asked Mr Moore to stop disturbing him. Good. You have to wonder why it gets to the point where a committee has to ask the government to produce some kind of analysis of, and rationale for, proposed policy changes as significant as this and in such a significant area. Why is it that government does not do the analysis?

Mr Moore: Because you disagree with them.

MS TUCKER: Mr Moore interjects, "Because you disagree with them." (Extension of time granted.) If Mr Moore looked at the recommendation, he would realise that the committee was expressing concern about removing security of tenure without producing a proper analysis and argument for doing that. The committee said, "Do the work. Bring it back here. Can we have a full debate in the parliament about your proposed changes?" Mr Moore needs to note that the committee did not say, "We totally reject forever the proposal that you remove security of tenure." The committee said, "We do not think you have produced the arguments. We are asking you to go away and do a comprehensive analysis. Bring that work back to the Assembly so there can be a full debate." We did not say we totally oppose it. We said to go and do the work, and you have not done it.

Underlying the concerns that led the committee to take this position was why the government would be producing these significant changes to the provision of public housing without having done that work. When the community with expertise came and spoke to the committee, they expressed serious concerns about this proposal which the

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