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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 8 Hansard (27 June) . . Page.. 2361 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

However, it is time for the government to do a full analysis of how well these measures are feeding into achieving the ACT greenhouse target of getting back to 1990 levels by 2008. The ACT greenhouse strategy was released nearly 21/2 years ago by the previous government and is due for review. Indeed, I am asking the government to take on that work.

The increase in tip fees, with better differentiation between the size of loads, is a good move, but I hope that the revenue will go back into developing more initiatives to achieve our no waste goal. The promised development of new domestic waste collection and recycling contracts will be the key test of the government's commitment to the no waste target.

On the broader social issues, the new government has sought to address some of the damage caused by the previous government. We have increased investment in disability services, mental health, young people at risk and respite care and, it seems, put greater focus on the quality of public service. We should not forget, however, that the social services are there in order to provide support for people in need and the focus will need to shift from delivering outputs in a timely manner to treating people with respect and dignity and positively affecting their lives. People who live in public housing know what I am talking about, as do people who need mental health services.

I have some comments to make about particular areas, but obviously these are preliminary comments. There are many areas of the budget which we have yet to look at in detail and the estimates process will be important, as always. The Greens have for some time emphasised the importance of public housing and the fundamental role of secure, appropriate, affordable housing in addressing social disadvantage and maintaining healthy communities. In this context, we were pleased to see the government's strong statements about access to safe, affordable housing being a right of everyone in the community and the importance of developing sustainable tenancies, which I assume means recognising the need in the public housing and social housing sector to engage with tenants as people and, at times, as people with particular needs, not just as people who pay the rent. That is a difference I am seeing with this government. Clearly, the response to housing of previous governments was that it was about bricks and mortar. This government is definitely showing a much more sophisticated understanding of its role on housing.

Gowrie Court is an interesting example. A strong community focus has developed through collaboration on a garden, having a singing group and so on. It is interesting that Gowrie Court is one of the multiunit housing complexes whose future is yet to be determined. While the development set to replace Burnie Court will include a significant proportion of public housing, there is no guarantee that community facilities will be included in the construction. What I am saying here is that, while I am seeing a different approach, these two examples are of concern to me as they do not seem quite consistent.

I understand that decisions about these complexes will be made on the basis of a cost-benefit analysis for each complex. The cost-benefit analysis will include financial trade-offs between upgrading and maintenance versus the cost of creating new accommodation and will include an assessment of the social costs or perhaps benefits of relocation, of breaking up a community and so on. The Greens welcome this kind of thorough analysis,

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