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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 09 Hansard (Wednesday, 18 August 2004) . . Page.. 3823 ..

percentage in your development,” then we are asking that particular person to carry, I think, much more of the burden than would be appropriate.

I think Ms Dundas actually touched on it a bit too. She was saying that—if I can paraphrase it a bit, and I agree with her—it is actually the differential cost of the reduction of those couple of units in a unit development that will be carried by the people buying the rest of the units. So what we are saying is that, if the developer is not going to carry the lower costing, then those people who are going to be in the rest of the development will do that; the other 19 will specifically be carrying the subsidy for these people, not the community at large. It is also true, I think, that that will happen within certain suburbs but not on a planned basis. I do not think that is quite the approach that we should take.

I am also concerned about the stigmatisation of public housing tenants. Having been one myself in my youth, I know that if you live in a block of government housing there is a label attached. That is why I rather supported the spot buying initiative that Mrs Dunne was talking about. Predominantly, those public housing tenants are fantastic, and you have only got to see the tenant of the month awards to see just how fantastic they are. But occasionally you get tenants that are not so wonderful. There is a stigma that goes with that.

I do not think it is a really crash hot idea to have, let’s say, a 20-unit development where 19 of the people have bought their place and a public housing tenant is in there at a subsidised cost. They are going to be saying to me, the other 19—and I have heard this said with respect to residential streets in my electorate—“Having that person in the street brings the value of my place down.” So what happens is that the social opportunity for these people to just get on with their life and make a success of it actually is detrimentally affected. If it is well known in advance that that is going to be the case, then it will actually happen; it will come about.

I am a bit concerned that having an actual ratio of unit developments for this so-called affordable housing will not actually achieve the right social outcome. Certainly it will address somebody’s housing issue. There is not a problem with that—the security of having a roof over one’s head—but I do not know if it will address the total social issues facing people who are in a difficult situation with respect to their accommodation. I would rather see our supply in line with a more global solution where the community actually carries more responsibility for this through the government of the day leading the way and then having a shared commitment to doing this from industry—the building industry, the housing industry—and the community generally.

One of the other things that I am concerned about here—and the last one, I suppose; and Mrs Dunne is quite right—is that if you impose a regime on people then what you are going to get is a reluctance to comply. These people are smarter than most of us, and they will not comply and will end up making sure that their investment is protected. You can bet your life on it.

I am very much reluctant to support something that imposes a particular percentage on a unit development. I know that the unit development that I am involved with in Kippax has a good mixture of public housing tenants and private tenants. I have to say, the private tenants are not all high-income ones either; there are some low-income people in

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