Page 4242 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 16 November 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The window of opportunity must be pursued now. Ideas conceived from new housing options must be explored and given due consideration. Recently in the federal arena, the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Heritage delivered a report on sustainable cities. A case study of community housing was projected as a sustainable housing development that can, I believe, be adapted to encompass a blend of housing options. Not only does this model embrace the use of land sensibly and in a viable manner, environmentally and economically, but also it provides a sense of hope that new communities can be nurtured within a suburb with very little impact on the streetscape and with no major shift in the distinct feel of a neighbourhood or suburb.
Any such development must demonstrate that a blend of housing options can be constructed giving consideration to conservation of energy and utility, embracing the principles of recycling and environmental impacts and, most importantly I believe, creating a community space for residents to interact and share in the responsibility and a sense of ownership for their space.
There appears to be very little room to move in terms of the Stanhope government’s commitment to additional funds for capital injection into public and social housing options. Now is perhaps the time to further commit to partnerships with the private sector, as clearly required by obligations under the commonwealth-state housing agreement, particularly to revitalise some sections of the inner city areas with more condensed mixed housing options that will provide some relief in Canberra’s tight housing sector.
Some members may look hesitantly upon the need to change some land use and the integration of mixed housing options in established suburbs. The ACT government needs to look seriously at incentives, rather than mandating specific requirements, to elevate the prospect of more condensed urban developments. Government can invest in such projects by taking a vested interest. I acknowledge that steps have begun whereby the government has sought to initiate some larger public-private partnerships, such as on the Fraser and Burnie court sites.
The mixed housing option that I highlight as an example provides a possible insight into creating communities where a real opportunity exists to blend the types of housing options that could see the progression of people through public housing and into home ownership, if that is what people desire and aspire to achieve. This is all pointing to assisting and alleviating that public housing waiting list that continues to balloon out at the bottom. There seems to be a real block in the system and we need to look continually at ways in which we can free up properties and free from the system those that are able and willing to move through.
I must add that I do not overlook the fact that people who live in public or community housing value their properties as much as, if not more than, home owners in the private sector. Members may be aware that, after the recent national housing conference, research was released indicating that some of the most vulnerable people in our community, likely to reside in public housing, for example, single mothers, the unemployed or some people on low to middle incomes, are the people who care most for their homes and place a very high value on maintaining their tenancies. The Liberal opposition welcomes this evidence and, in order to protect and provide for this sector of
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .