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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 13 Hansard (26 November) . . Page.. 4686 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

has been ill-thought-out, because we know that there is no way that the government is going to be able to provide that number of units and deal with the unmet need on the waiting list. There is no way you can argue that closing Currong flats and removing 200-odd units from the supply is not going to have an effect on the housing crisis in the ACT. Mrs Burke talks about the housing crisis often enough, so I am surprised that she is not being more supportive of the pleas from the community and the community service organisations that are working with the homeless people and others experiencing this crisis and supporting this motion.

Another argument was put that people may want to leave anyway, because they can choose to leave if they want and ask for transfers. As we know, it is very difficult for people to get transfers because of the housing crisis that exists. Real concerns are being expressed by members of the community who deal with these issues about this key housing asset being closed at this point in time.

The minister did not justify adequately in his speech why it is that he thinks that it is more cost-effective or socially effective to close Currong apartments at the moment. The minister needs to justify the government's decision on Currong in terms of the impact it will have on the waiting list for public housing, on the overall numbers for public housing, and in terms of the cost of having alternative ways of providing 212 units of accommodation for similar people in a similar location.

The minister acknowledged just yesterday that we really need to be increasing the amount of public housing. That will require money to be spent, but it will prevent other social problems from worsening, which is the key point that we have to focus on. We have to focus on the human beings in this town who do not have proper housing.

I have also raised with the Treasurer the potential for introducing innovative ways of funding new public housing in the ACT and he has said that it is not a matter for his decision; it is for the government's decision. I direct it to the government, although I am sure that the Treasurer will have a strong influence in this connection. We need to be looking at innovative ways of doing so because providing public housing is really the only way to have a buffer for vulnerable people against the housing market. I have proposed, for example, the use of government bonds to fund an expansion of public housing, but the government does not seem to have taken that up.

I remind members that most of the decline in stock over the last five years has come from selling off multiunit properties. There were, of course, the fires, but the last annual report makes quite clear that the decline in property numbers over the past few years is a result of the sale of several multiunit sites that no longer provided appropriate housing for public housing tenants, including Burnie Court in 2001-02 with the loss of 263 units, Mawson Gardens in 2001 with the loss of 56 units, and Lachlan Court and Macpherson Court in 1999-2000 with the loss of 262 units. Prior to that the decline in property numbers was due to the transfer of 209 properties to the community housing sector.

We are not in a situation where we can afford to further deplete the housing stock, particular when there has been no good argument put for doing so. It is possible to refurbish. I was interested in Mr Wood's comment about there being 20 years left. I had not heard that figure before. I have asked him to give us a reference so that we can understand where it has come from. As I understood him, he was saying that to maintain

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