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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 12 Hansard (7 December) . . Page.. 3872 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

Turning straight to recommendation No 1, the committee recommended that security of tenure for public housing tenants be maintained and that, if the government wished to proceed to remove security of tenure for public housing tenants, it first undertake a comprehensive assessment of the people likely to be affected and that the issue be brought before the Assembly for debate. The government's response was that it agreed in principle.

But you have only to go down to the very next sentence to see the government saying that it cannot support continuing to offer security of tenure to those tenants whose circumstances have changed since entering public housing and who no longer have a need for public housing. According to whom, Mr Moore, do they no longer have a need for public housing?

Mr Deputy Speaker, when you have families which have had security of tenure and been able to consolidate their position financially, economically, socially and emotionally because they know that they have a place that they can call their home and stay in and then they find out that that is all going to change because they are earning a bit too much money, according to Mr Moore's perspective on the issue, does that really mean that they will be better off when they leave or does it mean that actually they will be going backwards as they will be losing that security that meant that they were able to advance their position in society, advance themselves and their children, and all of a sudden they are back into that old endless cycle of struggling to survive rather than knowing they have some security of tenure? The government's response to recommendation No 1 really is quite appalling.

In recommendation No 2 the committee recommended that security of tenure be available for community housing tenants. Again, the government said that it agrees in principle with that, but it cannot force this recommendation upon community housing providers. Why not? They provide housing services as part of the Commonwealth - State Housing Agreement. There is a relationship between those providers and the ACT government. Surely security of tenure is an absolute, not an if, a but or a maybe. We all understand how important it is and how fundamental it is. Yet the government says that because you get housing from a particular provider you are not guaranteed that security. Members of this Assembly have every right to feel unhappy about that response.

Moving to recommendation No 7, relating to the rental bond loan scheme, again the government said that it agrees with the recommendation of the committee that the government continue to provide such a scheme, but then it said that it is no longer necessary to allocate rental bond loans through ACT Housing and that it would only provide a small emergency fund. We all know that the rental bond loan scheme is rarely used, even though it could serve as an enormous help to many people moving into the private rental market, yet they are saying that they are not going to expand or improve the provision or even the access to that scheme. Again we have an example of the government's words as against the government's actions. I think all members can make a fair judgment about which is reality and which is just hype.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the other issue is that the ACT's private rental market is one where it is extremely difficult to get low - cost accommodation and where, on frequent occasions, the quality of the low - cost accommodation is very poor. In that context, we all know that the market in Canberra is a landlords' market and they can demand very high

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