Page 2761 - Week 08 - Thursday, 24 August 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
has made this point as well, for the sector to understand how the government have reached the figures that they have and how these organisations are going to move forward from this point.
Further to this, even the estimates committee noted in its report to the Assembly that it was concerned as to how these efficiencies will be delivered, I would like to point out that there are a few other areas that could receive further scrutiny, one being the amassing of revenue from the collection of rent. The committee was informed that around 63 per cent of Housing ACT’s revenue comes from rent. Of this, around 15 per cent is accrued from renters paying full market rent, and I know that the minister himself admitted in the past that he expects the number of full market rentals to decline over time as the housing assistance program is primarily focused on assisting Canberrans most in need.
This, I believe, will become a policy issue that the Stanhope government will be grappling with in the near future. Do they continue to offer security of tenure, for example, discounting the need to comply with the commonwealth-state housing agreement that clearly states that housing assistance programs should be offered to those most in need for the duration of need or do they consider innovative ways to assist high income earners who can clearly seek out alternative housing options to move through the system and free up more properties for Canberrans in need?
Until recently debt management appeared to be an area of neglect in this portfolio. It is simply not coming down, and the minister indicated to me in recent correspondence that, as of 7 August 2006, the total amount owing by tenants to Housing ACT is $2.102 million. That includes rental arrears and sundry debts.
What is puzzling about the debt carried by Housing ACT is that it should be coming down due to the new policy of enforcing a repayment scheme by tenants who fall into arrears of $500 or more, and of course I am very much in support of that. With every right comes a corresponding responsibility. We have a right to a roof over our heads, but there is also a responsibility. Those of us who are buying our own homes have to pay our mortgages on time.
However, I would ask the minister to consider lowering the threshold and that Housing ACT install a repayment scheme far earlier than $500. In fact, why not make it $100? Maybe the minister can explain why they chose the figure of $500. I believe that we are allowing people to spiral out of debt too quickly. To me, a debt of $50 is too much for some of the people that we both deal with. Let us pare that back even further; let us catch these people earlier, give them the support that they need and help them to manage and work their way through. $500 is a huge amount of money to people in this situation. Efficiency gains will remain the catchcry for some time to come, particularly for Housing ACT. There are some very simple areas, I believe, where savings might be achieved, such as debt management and targeting the service to those most in need.
Finally, I look forward to hearing from the minister about whatever happened to the now long-awaited outcomes of his much hailed housing forum. It was held, I think, about six months ago. Those who were involved and the community at large have heard absolutely nothing to date. Sadly, I suspect there will not now be enough money in the kitty to implement too many of the ideas.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .