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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 12 Hansard (20 November) . . Page.. 4405 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

to the debate we have just had on indigenous education. I made the point in that debate that you have to link these things together, if you take a holistic approach. The question of education is obviously related to whether children and students have stable and secure housing.

One of the reasons for the high costs is the age of the stock, but it is important that ACT Housing is empowered to look creatively at ways of keeping the stock and improving it. There are environmental as well as potential financial benefits in reworking and using what is already constructed. Stable, appropriate housing is absolutely essential in preventing and moving out of poverty, finding work, whether paid or unpaid, and developing social and family networks that help us all to get through.

The government has also acknowledged that stable housing is a key foundation of achievement of the government's social objectives. That is on page 4, and I strongly welcome it. I am a bit interested in how these strong foundations will be worked out, given the stated need to balance tenant desire for security of tenure against the need to rejuvenate the asset base. The decision to demolish Currong Apartments is a case in point here. It is not just the tenants' desire for security of tenure; there is also not enough stock to accommodate the people currently living in Currong without pushing the waiting times out even further for other people who need housing.

As the government acknowledges, in a different statement on the same page, security of tenure is not only in the interests of the tenant concerned. The option of stability is a key foundation for societal, community and individual development and simply for having a reasonable life. I would urge the government to find a way to use the value of the stock to expand the available public housing-not just to restructure the portfolio. Most, if not all, of the construction I am aware of is for new older persons units and not for new units appropriate for single people, difficult families or noisy people with difficult personal histories who need extra support.

The restructuring to better meet express needs is an important step. We want people with large or fluid families in appropriately sized and located housing, and we want appropriate housing as much as possible. While the multiunit properties have created problems, they also make it a bit easier for support services to reach people who need it. It is essential that the work of outreach and support to people in their homes be kept up. As there is a shift to a more scattered population of public housing tenants, it might open up serious gaps in the system.

I am also very supportive of the interweaving in this document of environmentally responsible changes to the stock. As we were discussing yesterday in this place, as well as the community benefit in environmentally sensible design and construction, the benefits for tenants in terms of lower water and energy bills are very important. Together with the steps toward supports and reforms announced by the minister earlier this week-which we were very pleased to see and commend the government for and which were also, of course, a result of the government working constructively with and listening to the community sector, including CARE, Shelter, the Welfare Rights and Legal Centre and the Tenants Union-I welcome the overall direction and principles outlined in this document.

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