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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 3 Hansard (12 March) . . Page.. 983 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

said, "She doesn't even say anything about a time frame."There is no time frame. Mrs Burke's motion quite clearly states "for a reasonable period of time to be determined by the Minister."The Minister himself will be able to determine-and he has left the chamber-what is an appropriate time.

Obviously, this is not something that is going to occur very often. Mrs Burke's motion seeks to get the Minister to exercise his power under the act, and even the Minister concedes that he can do that. I will give him a little example just to show that he can develop and approve a national disaster program. Such a program is not necessarily going to affect very many people, and Mrs Burke is not talking about very many people.

We all know that one of the great benefits of public housing is that renters do not have to pay more than 25 per cent of their income or the market rent, whichever is the lowest. That is a good deal. This is certainly something that was set several Commonwealth/state housing ministerial meetings ago-I think that was probably set in my time as minister. I think it is a pretty fair arrangement.

As I said, Mrs Burke is talking about very few people. She is talking about people who are probably on a fairly low income-maybe even a low to medium income-who have lost their house and possessions and are traumatised. They have been paying, say, $100 per week rent and, through no fault of their own, the property is burned and they have lost everything. They are then moved to a better property-it might be a temporary move, and that is understandable-and they have to pay $200 a week. That would be a very significant increase. As I have said, this is not going to happen to terribly many people. But, obviously there is some concern in the community as a result of this dreadful natural disaster and-

Mr Wood: One case.

MR STEFANIAK: I think it might be more than one, Mr Minister. But, at any rate, there is obviously some concern in relation to this.

Mrs Dunne: One case is one too many, Bill.

MR STEFANIAK: I will come to that, too. Yes, one case may be one too many. I think you will find it might be more than one case. But I think it is important to have regard to the circumstances of those persons. This is not something that is going to continue indefinitely, Minister. It will operate for a reasonable period to be determined by you. That might only be six months, but that is to be determined by you.

These situations do crop up. I think you are right when you say that you think it is possible that you could work within the terms of the act and the Commonwealth/state housing agreement. You certainly can.

Mr Wood: It's difficult.

MR STEFANIAK: It is difficult but you can. Let me tell you about an incident that took place when I was minister. In 1996, two of my excellent Housing officials-Peter Gill, the general manager, and Sue Birtles, the commissioner-brought to my attention an

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