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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 12 Hansard (7 December) . . Page.. 3871 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

That is a system of the past. It is a system, I have to say, that we have sought in an ideologically appropriate world to deliver for the full range of people. We are at a position where we have to make a pragmatic decision, and when you make a pragmatic decision you focus on those who are in greatest need of your support. This system has to be focused on the people in greatest need as our priority. It has to be a better and fairer system.

There is no arrogance in our response to this committee's report. When I moved the amendment it was not a case of my saying to Ms Tucker that I was ignoring what she has been saying. I understand very clearly why she is dissatisfied with the response of the government. Instead of just trying to encourage people to vote against her amendment, the amendment that I have moved says, "Yes, we will look at those things that you have asked us to look at, but please do not stop us instituting these reforms which are a pragmatic response to the situation that we are in, because we do not have access to the $300 million or $400 million that would deliver the ideologically ideal position."

There are two parts to Ms Tucker's amendment. The first part is to get us to review those things. I have left that in my amendment and said that we will do so. The second part is to bind us to the view that we should not make a pragmatic decision. We must be able to make a pragmatic decision. There has been too much delay already and people who are in great need are missing out.

MR CORBELL (4.42): Mr Deputy Speaker, I am very happy to respond to some of the points that Mr Moore just made in this debate. Really, what does it come down to? Does it come down to making a pragmatic decision, as Mr Moore suggests, or is it something else? Is it perhaps what we should be aiming for in the delivery of public housing? Is it about what we aspire to achieve with public housing? Is it about what we believe should not be accepted because that would lead to a diminution of those aspirations?

That is what this government has said today. They have said, "We are not going to aspire to that any more. We are not going to aspire for a public housing sector that meets the needs of all who need to use it. We are going to cut back on that and we are going to go for the people in the lowest socioeconomic group who face the greatest need for public housing."

That is a simplistic way of viewing this issue. It is, quite frankly, a sell - out on public housing provision in the territory. It is a sell - out because it says that the government does not accept the philosophy of what public housing is about, that is, about providing security of tenure, about providing for people to live in security and stability to build up their circumstances knowing that they are not going to have the carpet ripped out from underneath them That is the big difference between what Mr Moore is saying and what the rest of us are saying in this Assembly today.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I was reading through the government's response to the select committee's report and three great words, "agreed in principle", kept coming up. "Agreed in principle", as we all know, can often be code for: "We do not agree at all, but we are not going to say that." But we all know what "agreed in principle" means in relation to a number of the recommendations dealt with in the government's response.

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