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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 12 Hansard (7 December) . . Page.. 3882 ..

MR SMYTH (continuing):

are unable to rent in a tight rental market and cannot currently get accommodation because all the houses are being used.

Let's look at the houses. We still have the shortest waiting lists in the country, with the exception of the Northern Territory where there are different circumstances. We have the shortest waiting list. We have some of the quickest turnarounds. Our waiting times are measured in months whereas in other states it is years and years. We are addressing the fact that we have inadequate stock. We know that we have the oldest stock. We have the wrong sort of concentration and we have the wrong types of housing. We have the plan in place to change that. These reforms are part of that plan so that we can look after people better and so that we can look after those most in need first.

Mr Corbell condemns Mr Moore for not having an aspiration. An aspiration is not going to keep you dry in the wet or warm in the middle of a Canberra winter. The ACT Housing staff deal with real people, not aspirations. What they deal with is the need to put a roof over somebody's head now. We are endeavouring, where we can and where it is reasonable, to free up some accommodation in order to look after those most in need.

Mr Speaker, I could go on and on. Mr Corbell made the point that the government's response is misleading because we say we agree in principle and then further on in the paragraph we say something different. Well, that is why you write "agree in principle". If we said we agreed and we didn't agree, and we wrote that further on in the paragraph or the sentence, that would be misleading. Where we say we agree with the principle except in the context of what we are doing now and why we cannot carry it out, then that is an appropriate way to go. You actually have to read both bits together. If you want to take a simplistic approach and say, "They said they agreed in principle but they didn't really," then you are dismissing the way that it is written. You really should look at the qualifications we put against the criteria.

Mr Speaker, I could go on and on. There is some criticism that we don't care. Who says we don't care? Ms Tucker says we don't care. I reject that. She is wrong.

Mr Corbell talked about the stigma of being in public housing. I know that Mr Stefaniak worked against the stigma of public housing, as I did, and I know Mr Moore will continue that work. The press are willing to get up and bag unmercifully that occasional tenant who for whatever reason is unable to maintain their property, or for whatever reason doesn't live the way that we would normally expect housing tenants to live. They bag all public housing tenants. I have been very active, and I know Mr Moore will be active, in refuting that claim.

You do it in a couple of ways by disavowing them of their own prejudices and the biases in the reports when they get it wrong, such as when they criticise somebody with a mental health problem or when they criticise somebody with inadequate living skills for not living to the norm. Some of it is terrible and it looks appalling, but you have to go deeper and find out why. That is where you get to the housing staff who do a good job in endeavouring to manage an enormous array of different circumstances. We want to get rid of the stigma.

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