Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 13 Hansard (25 November) . . Page.. 4570 ..
MS TUCKER (continuing):
The current Commonwealth government, unsurprisingly, has emphasised public/private partnerships in its Commonwealth-state housing agreement. The ACT government's response in the document under discussion today was to note:
The ability of the ACT, like other smaller jurisdictions, to attract private sector financing for social housing will be limited and is likely to be focused on attracting non for profit contributions and joint ventures through the community housing sector; planning and land concessions, and changes to fiscal measures.
I proposed in response an issue of government bonds to fund public housing. While the ACT may not have many large private industries, we do have a relatively high proportion of our population on a higher income. The Affordable Housing Research Consortium assessed a range of public/private partnerships. It concluded that a bonds issue to fund construction of new public and community housing was highly efficient and effective. A recent report by Allens, which I have seen, also rated a bonds-funded construction program highly. Out of partnerships, tax credits and bonds, bonds was the highest rank on allocative efficiency and investor interest. It scored a low ranking on "political feasibility", and that I guess is what we are facing here.
The problem-the very worrying problem-with some of the ways that private/public partnerships can be arranged is that we need to ensure security of housing, we need to ensure some sense of control over homes, and this just is not possible in privately run housing. It is not stable, it is not guaranteed to deal with the affordability.
I take the government's point that affordability is the product not only of housing prices but also employment levels and also the general health of society. One of the consultant reports makes a seemingly passing comment on the amount of public housing stock, saying that the ACT has more than enough. I have serious questions about this assertion and I am a little disappointed that the government has not challenged the assertion more thoroughly itself.
On 1 April this year I asked the Minister for Planning a question on the Metropolitan development. I made the point that his decision at the time to call in the development application on the Metropolitan residential towers was made on the basis of high quality design and numerous social and economic benefits. The application was approved, with conditions. Under the environmental assessment finding, one recommendation was that affordable housing is provided within the proposed development in accordance with the affordable housing taskforce's recommendation for providing affordable housing in this location.
At the time the price of the units in this development started at $270,000 for one-bedroom units or $350,000 for two-bedroom units. I asked the minister how this could constitute affordable housing. I also asked how affordable housing was being structured into current developments such as the government's own Kingston foreshore. While the minister could not recall that particular condition or statement in the development documents, later advice from his office explained that the increase in top price accommodation in city west would somehow lessen the pressure on more affordable housing in the rest of Canberra. Somehow!
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .