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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 13 Hansard (26 November) . . Page.. 4662 ..

MS DUNDAS (continuing):

low levels of dwellings that were left at the end of the previous Liberal government's term. I would like to point out that this is actually setting the bar quite low when you look at long-term investment in public and community housing.

We have to keep in mind that the population and the total number of residential dwellings in the ACT continues to grow, and the government needs to go back and question how we can have such a low goal for the number of public housing properties. In reality, this means we have a policy of decreasing the proportion of public and community housing as the city grows. If some of the projections of the spatial plan are correct, then over the next 30 years the proportion of social housing in the territory will drop quite drastically, which will result in even greater pressure on the public and community housing systems.

I note that Ms Tucker's motion also raises the issue of refurbishing the existing complex. Especially for the reason of its excellent location, the issue of refurbishment may be a medium-term solution if the government is unwilling to make the investment required to maintain or increase the level of public housing stock to meet the needs of the community. While the complex is obviously ageing, a major upgrade of the facility will extend its life for another decade or so. This would result in additional social housing purchases in growing the public housing stock, rather than simply trying to replace those properties that have already been sold off.

I would also add the option of public redevelopment of the site. Last year the Assembly passed the Planning and Land Act to set up the government's land agency, which was designed to have the capacity to undertake major public redevelopment projects like this for the benefit of the community. So why not use this agency to provide better-quality housing on the Currong site that will add to the housing supply in the long term?

I would like to respond to a point that the minister made in his speech. He talked about point (1) of Ms Tucker's motion, which says that until there has been an increase in the number of public housing properties the government should not move out residents who would prefer to stay at Currong apartments. The minister said that if something more suitable comes up we will not be able to move them. If something more suitable comes up then the residents would want to move. It is not that they do not want to move at the moment. They are happy at Currong. But if somewhere else is available that they are happy with, then I suggest they would probably like to move. So I think that argument put forward by the minister was a bit of a furphy.

He also went on to talk about the costs of refurbishment and the other costs. I think we need to view it as an investment. It is an investment in capital and it is an investment in people. It is an important part of looking after the community. We can help break the cycle of poverty by helping people into stable accommodation.

I would like to point out that the Democrats do not disagree with the general policy of decommissioning the remaining large and ageing public housing complexes around the city. The past policy of concentrating public housing in large complexes has proved a failure as it results in concentrating disadvantage in a small geographic area, with associated negative social outcomes.

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