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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 12 Hansard (7 December) . . Page.. 3873 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

rents for even very modest lodgings; yet the government thinks that it is reasonable for people to be able to shift from public to private accommodation.

My concern with this matter is that public housing provision is not just about targeting those with the lowest incomes and highest need. It is about lifting the standard for everyone. I was interested to read some comments making the point that, if we pursue the government's objective here of the lowest incomes and the highest need alone, first of all we will lose those 15 per cent of tenants who do pay market rent and who account for 35 per cent of the rental income of ACT Housing.

Mr Moore: That is not true.

MR CORBELL: The minister says that that is not true. He can get up and rebut it, if he likes, but I have it on very good authority that that is the case. The question that has to be asked is: where will this money be found in light of diminishing funds from the Commonwealth? That is another issue that the government fails to address in its response to the select committee's report.

Perhaps even more important is the viability of public and community housing and the social mix within public and community housing. Do we really want to create a distinction, a division, between those in private accommodation and those in public accommodation? Do we really want to say that it is only those on the lowest incomes who will be in public housing? Do we want to create a stigma associated with the increasing divide between those in public housing and those not in public housing, or do we want to see it as a broader mix of tenants from a broader mix of backgrounds and a greater degree of variety in terms of income levels or employment? Do we want those things to be taken into account as well so that public housing does not have the stigma associated with it that increasingly it is having?

I think that the issues raised by Ms Tucker are valid and important and the Labor Party certainly will be supporting her amendment.

MR RUGENDYKE (4.53): Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not necessarily endorse the reforms that the government is introducing for housing, nor do I necessarily accept things the way they are. It is quite clear that we have been brought to this position because successive governments have allowed the public housing sector to run down, to the point where perhaps drastic action has to be taken to bring it back into line.

It seems that the government is quite intent on pressing ahead with its reforms to public housing, despite what this Assembly might say. This issue is a vexing one, as you have said, Mr Deputy Speaker. It has gone to a committee and the committee has reported. The government has responded to that report. It is quite clear that the philosophical views on how public housing should be handled are vastly differing.

At the end of the day, I believe that it is a government's job to implement policy and survive or otherwise by way of the electorate's view of how that policy is implemented, managed and delivered. No matter what we say here today, the government does have the right to put up its policies. I think that we need to ensure that we have assurances from the minister that the matter will be treated with compassion, that the counter staff, managers and policy makers will treat people with compassion, dignity and respect.

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