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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 12 Hansard (7 December) . . Page.. 3884 ..

MR BERRY (5:34): Mr Speaker, I wasn't going to enter this debate until that contribution by the former minister for housing. I found that insulting, given the issues that have been raised in this debate in relation to public housing. All we heard was a stream of honeyed words and rhetoric which seemed to be driven by some sort of well - off, middle - class values from a minister who really didn't want to deal with the issues that have been raised in the debate today.

Earlier on I heard mention of issues which have been raised by the Welfare Rights and Legal Centre. This minister has not even attempted to deal with them. Why didn't the minister tell us how the government's proposals were not going to contribute to greater transience? Very clearly the experts in the matter who represent the community have a firm view that it will create greater transience. They have another view that it will create over - crowding and dislocation amongst the public housing population.

Mr Moore: Why didn't you give us a bit of time to be able to respond instead of springing this on us?

MR BERRY: Minister, why didn't you address that issue? Because you have no answer to the proposition. The proposition is sound, it appears. I heard the earlier debate and I was convinced by this claim made by the Welfare Rights and Legal Centre: that greater power to deny people housing will result in those most difficult to house, due to a multitude of problems, being refused housing altogether.

Another claim was that increases in rent charge based on the income of other members of the household, including children, and an increased power to force transfers to smaller accommodation will add to the pressures on struggling families and others most in need. All of these claims are serious issues in this debate which are not being addressed by the government. So - called streamlining of the waiting list is effectively the segmentation which the select committee recommended against. I understand that everybody on the committee had that view.

They also raise this issue of removing security of tenure for future public housing tenants whose income exceeds the government's strict limit by 10 per cent. The reason the government has gone for future public tenants is because they do not want howls of derision from existing tenants over this issue. The future tenants are not yet there to protest. According to the statement by the centre, and I have been quoting liberally in relation to their release, this will be a damaging disincentive for those tenants wanting to break free of the welfare cycle. How can this Assembly support those sorts of moves with such criticism being made in relation to the matter? The change to tenure, they say, will also apply to current tenants if at some stage circumstances require them to enter a new tenancy agreement. So there's a trap in there, as well.

Mr Moore: What sorts of circumstances?

MR BERRY: You are the minister.

Mr Moore: Yes, and I know it.

MR BERRY: Of course, Michael knows.

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