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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 2 Hansard (1 March) . . Page.. 444 ..

MR WOOD (continuing):

minister in December 2000. I concede to him that he was given carriage of these changes with very little notice or prior explanation.

Although the government's response to the select committee indicated that it agreed in principle-in principle-with 12 recommendations and agreed in part with one, we found out when we read the fine print that several important recommendations had been completely disregarded. In fact, the government ignored the committee's recommendations and the policy changes which had first been proposed in 1999 came into effect on 1 January this year.

A major change made by the government affects security of tenure. Tenants who sign leases after 1 January this year will have periodic reviews at three or five years. If they no longer meet the eligibility criteria, they will have to vacate. Evidence given to the select committee by several people, including departmental officials, showed that the higher rent paid by people on higher incomes, who will now be evicted, was important to the ACT's budget. That is just one aspect of it.

Let me say that I recognise that there is some logic in the government's proposal here. The government argues that public housing should be available to those most in need and that, if you are above the financial eligibility criteria, you should not hold a house that may be available to somebody else. There is some logic in that; I recognise that. But I believe that the stronger argument, the one which has to be taken into account at the end of the day, is that security of tenure is important. The importance of the financial income to Housing is just one reason, but it is much more important that people be able to see their house as their home.

People should know when they move into a house that they are going to be able to stay in that house. That, surely, is the strongest possible encouragement to people to care for that house, to nurture it, to treat it as their own, to turn it into their home. I think that is the strongest reason for maintaining security of tenure: it is their home.

Take another case. In these days particularly people move into and out of jobs and employment, employment conditions change from full time to part time, and a large number of people cannot be sure one year what their income will be the next year. One year they may be eligible for public housing, but in a subsequent year they may fall outside the eligibility criteria, which could mean that they would have to move into and out of public housing. That, it seems to me, is not the best way to go. So many people lack strong security these days that they need the security of that home. Clearly, on balance, security of tenure is important for people and I believe, and I hope that this Assembly believes, that they should have it.

Another one of the provisions that we wish to change, to knock out, is the one that residents of a public housing property who are not the tenants-relatives, usually; children or others-are now required to pay 25 per cent of their income towards the rent, an increase from 10 per cent. In many circumstances, that is justified. I understand that the minister is going to make some changes today as he responds in this debate which may overcome some of the problems that were not recognised at the time.

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