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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 12 Hansard (20 November) . . Page.. 4446 ..

MR WOOD (continuing):

areas, but that is not surprising because they do not have the same level of stock as the old north and south. People sometimes say, "If I have to decide, I'd rather be on the shorter waiting list, so I'll adjust my preferences to get on the shorter list."I think that the end result of having a roof over your head is of prime importance.

I noticed your view about a step-down facility, Mrs Burke. As we develop programs in the future, we really do have to do more about people who do not fit comfortably and easily into standard housing. Most of the problems that you and I get come from that sort of area. I will take up your suggestions because, as I look at the future of housing, we will develop something, but it might be a bit more difficult to achieve it.

Mrs Burke: Just speak to the Treasurer.

MR WOOD: We will see what we can do. Turning to multiunit sites, Mrs Burke made some comments about heritage issues. I am also minister for heritage and, as such, I am also interested in the ACT Housing properties that are heritage listed. Some of them are on Northbourne Avenue and they are much in need of having something happen to them. Many of them need maintenance. I do not mind saying-other governments have said it before me-that our maintenance is behind what it should be. That has been a condition since day one of self-government; it is as simple as that. I have not assisted with the maintenance problem, because I have said that I do not want to sell off properties. We are looking at that.

Turning to condition assessment, as our facilities management people make normal visits on request or in routine they are now developing a very strong listing of what every house needs. That will take place over two or three years and in the end we will have an accurate assessment of what each house needs. By doing that, we will be in a better position to make decisions about maintenance and new works, again depending on what the finance can do. I have not responded to absolutely everything you have said, Mrs Burke, but we will come back to some of them in conversation.

Ms Tucker made a very important point, one that not enough people recognise, when she referred to the sentence on page 4 of the document which says that the government recognises that the portfolio exists primarily to meet the government's social goals. That is the case. Sometimes we cannot see the wood for the trees. Sometimes we look at the narrow issue of a house or, indeed, the whole ACT Housing asset and say that we have to deal with it and just attend to that, but actually it is about housing in the community and the need to house our people. Ms Tucker has picked up on what I regard as the prime point of my administration of ACT Housing. It is there to meet our social goals. Those goals are, in fact, listed and fairly well established. I thank her for pointing that out and I do want to emphasise it.

Ms Tucker spoke about the asset yield on stock and I take her point there. (Extension of time granted.) In a way, you could look at the amount of rental rebate as being on the positive side of the balance sheet because it represents money that vulnerable members of our community are not having to pay in rent and is keeping them sustainable. That is certainly the case. It goes to the other point I was mentioning before. The rents are currently 25 per cent of income. They are not related to the value of the house; they are related absolutely to income.

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