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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 8 Hansard (8 August) . . Page.. 2618 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

colleagues accused Mrs Carnell of doing. Mr Speaker, I will not reflect on the vote of the Assembly. However, let me say that it is not my intention to be responsible for breaching section 15 of the act.

Ms Tucker, you may be interested to know that it is appropriate for the Residential Tenancies Act to apply in a way that is consistent with the Housing Assistance Act. Somebody may consider that their market rental is excessive, and that may well be the case. This would be covered by the Residential Tenancies Act. We assess market rental in the first place by area. This assessment may not apply to their specific house for a number of reasons. The Residential Tenancy Act can apply and it could be determined, "No, this is excessive market rental." So the process is reasonable.

I think it is worth giving you some understanding of what has happened. Tenants of 113 properties who were paying full market rental received increases of over $30. Almost all of them made requests for consideration by the department. ACT Housing has been discussing the situation with a number of them and my understanding is that probably two have indicated that they will appeal to the Residential Tenancy Tribunal to have their increase reviewed. That is their prerogative and it is entirely appropriate that that be the case. There is no perception that some punishment will follows that.

Public housing tenants quite commonly use a range of appeal mechanisms, and it is entirely appropriate that they do so. Housing tried to avoid this by reassessing if a particular property logically needed to be assessed.

Mr Wood: In doing that, will the department reduce any rentals?

MR MOORE: There is a deliberate or maybe ignorant-one of the two-blurring of what is happening here. No tenant is going to pay more than 25 per cent of their income. That is the way we deal with these issues. So it is not correct to say that the poorer people are doing this or not doing that. Certainly, there is a deliberate blurring in the public debate. Of course, that was the reason for the frustration I felt when I read the letter to the editor, written by somebody who works for the CPSU, about a question that was asked in the house yesterday.

Mr Speaker, it is disappointing when there is that blurring. It is important when dealing with public housing that we understand that people who are in public housing because they need government support are entitled to the rebate. Under the act, which I must comply with, their house is still assessed at market rental but a rebate is offered to match their salary. So, Mr Speaker, this is the appropriate system.

Section 15 of the act also requires the commissioner to take into consideration an annual review. There was certainly some confusion about the way I used the word "review" on ABC radio. It is true that there has been a review. That the rentals were not reviewed in the sense of being put up in the last four years is also true. My understanding is that there was some confusion. I sought to clarify that immediately, publicly, to make sure there was no confusion.

Mr Speaker, it seems to me that this motion is a motherhood statement-that we ensure in the most appropriate way that we protect those most in need. Since I have been minister, this government has taken significant action to make sure that we are protecting

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