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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 3 Hansard (12 March) . . Page.. 985 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

are put into accommodation where they have to pay $150, $180 or $200 a week as a stopgap measure, they should continue for a limited but reasonable period, to be determined by the minister, continue to pay that 100 bucks a week until a more permanent arrangement can be found. This is not a huge ask. We are not talking big bikkies here, but what we are asking for is very fair. I certainly support Mrs Burke in bringing such a motion before the Assembly and I commend her for doing so.

MS TUCKER (6.28): Mr Speaker, I am interested in this debate. I have also had phone calls in my office about rent and the situation of tenants after the fires. More particularly, the calls have related to the private rental market. Mrs Burke's motion calls on the Minister to exercise his powers to approve a natural disaster program that will create a waiver or exception, for a reasonable period of time, in relation to rental charges. I am aware that the government as a whole created a fund to assist people financially after the fires, and we are all very familiar with that assistance. I am also aware that the Minister exercised his powers in regard to the priority list, which meant people who were victims of the fires were given first priority. That was a reasonable thing to do, although it was of concern to everyone else on the waiting list who have got pushed right back.

I know that it is a dilemma because everybody is deserving of a house and stable, secure accommodation. It is a terrible thing when you have to prioritise in this way and make a decision about who is the most important. But the government gave these people priority with housing, and I understand their reasons for that. I am just saying that I am sure it was a difficult decision. So the Minister in fact did exercise his powers in that way to accommodate public housing tenants.

I have listened to Mrs Burke's argument and the Minister's argument, and I have to say I feel I am supportive of what the Minister has said. I am concerned that one case has been used as a basis for this motion, and even that case seems to be not clearly understood by the proponent of the motion. After looking into it, apparently the Minister cannot work out how this case could have occurred. So I would not feel comfortable supporting this motion when the reasons for adopting it are so unclear.

I am sure that the Minister will be working with Mrs Burke to clarify whether someone has been put in a difficult situation.

Mr Wood: We would like to do that.

MS TUCKER: The Minister would like to do that, he would love to do that, it is his responsibility to do that, and he will do that.

Mr Wood: Well, someone has got to tell me about it.

MS TUCKER: That is right, and this motion means you now know about it. The Minister has also made the point that if paying two weeks in advance had created hardship, this could have been waived. But there seems to be confusion if the payments were already in advance. I really do not know and I do not want to comment because it is all too unclear.

While I am on my feet I would like to take the opportunity to talk about the situation private tenants find themselves in because of the pressure that is being put on the housing

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