Page 1948 - Week 06 - Thursday, 8 June 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
showcase for local talent, but how many beds does it provide and how many mouths does it feed?
The ACT government has also failed to address the community sector task force report, which makes major recommendations regarding community sector industrial relations, work force development and funding issues. While the sector works away serving the most vulnerable in our community, with incredibly tight resources and difficult working conditions, a turnover rate twice the national average, at over 30 per cent, and a turn-away rate higher than any other region, the ACT government has totally ignored this task force report and there are no budget initiatives to solve these problems.
While the changes to our school system will be attractive to some and devastating for others, at least we can see what the plan is. However, for another year, despite a task force and summits, the government has been unable, or unwilling, to put an affordable housing strategy together. In 2001 there were around 9,200 ACT households in housing stress that were also in the bottom 40 per cent of Australian household incomes. Whilst this data is based on the 2001 census, every indicator of housing stress or affordability since then has indicated that the situation has become considerably worse in the following years. Perhaps the temporary housing minister could see what she could do in the next couple of months as the source of, and therefore solution to, our problems rests with the supply of affordable housing in the ACT private housing market.
This budget involves increases in rates and taxes. As increasing these charges will never be popular, the ACT government could have been a bit more creative and delivered on social outcomes as well as financial ones. One positive step is that ACT Housing will no longer be charged land tax. Perhaps affordable rental accommodation could have earned a tax concession as well. The increase in land releases should make some difference, but not at the sharp end of the housing crisis in the ACT.
Inclusionary zoning has been rejected by the housing industry and by the previous housing minister, but there is a way to incorporate community housing into other developments through a mix of regulation and concession which would share the cost across, rather than lumping it onto, developers. I note that, despite official rejection, there are some bold examples where it is going ahead, and I am watching with interest the consultation and planning for the replacement of Burnie Court.
The Greens are particularly disappointed in the failure to find more funds for community housing, particularly in light of the critical shortage of exit options from crisis accommodation and the impact of the federal government’s policies. The cut to SAAP funding is particularly offensive in this area.
It is no wonder this government has failed in this budget to deal with the social implications of its decisions, because the functional review, that mysterious document, completely ignored them. I note that the review was happy to rerun the tired old property investors’ line that Canberra has too much public housing. Canberra does have a high level of public housing, but it has no church housing, no low-cost private rental housing, no old-fashioned boarding houses and limited community housing stock. It clearly does not have too much public housing. If it did, the Narrabundah long-stay issue would not have scared people in government and across business as much as it did. But there is
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .