Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 12 Hansard (7 December) . . Page.. 3876 ..
MR STANHOPE (continuing):
In practice, it is more the case that people have obtained a larger house because a larger number of people have been involved. There are particular groups within the community that are particularly affected by overcrowding. We are probably aware that it is often the case that members of the indigenous community are people who, because of arrangements within indigenous or Aboriginal families - some cultural issues about family relationships - will occupy a house in greater numbers than non - indigenous members of the community. That applies as well to other groups within the community for a range of reasons.
The arrangements or proposals which the government now has in place will, when the pressure of that overcrowding eases or ceases, lead to some of those people being granted and accepting smaller houses. But then again, there is a cycle in this form of behaviour in relation to some of these groups. People will go from a larger house when the overcrowding dissipates and move into a smaller house but, through a cycle of circumstances, the overcrowding will again occur.
Under these new arrangements, those people who moved into a smaller house because of a lessening of an overcrowding circumstance will find it virtually impossible to move again into a larger house to meet their particular needs at the time. It will be virtually impossible for those moves to be made. The rules that have been constructed simply do not understand or accept the nature of certain family relationships or other relationships that lead to some of these particular issues.
I quote again:
Increases in rent charged based on the income of other members of the household (including children) and increased power to force transfers to smaller accommodation will all add to the pressures on struggling families and others most in need. And so - called "streamlining" of the waiting list is effectively the segmentation which the Select Committee specifically recommended against.
As well -
I think that this is one of the most significant points to be made -
removing security of tenure for future public housing tenants whose income exceeds the government's strict limit by 10 per cent will be a damaging disincentive for those tenants wanting to break free of the welfare cycle.
Another issue in relation to the deemed security is that the change to tenure will also apply to current tenants if at some time or stage circumstances require them to enter into a new tenancy agreement. The government, in its explanation of the new arrangements, again denies the force of this point. It seems not to understand the dynamic nature of families or relationships; they change all the time. It is as if, through these arrangements, the government does not accept that there will be a range of circumstances in relation to which particular households will change in nature, that they will break up, that some people will leave, that they will fracture in some way or other as a result of which people will wish or be forced to move out of the particular accommodation that they occupy.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .