Page 2763 - Week 08 - Thursday, 24 August 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
which may be a short-term solution to the incredible demand but does little to secure the long-term financial viability of ACT housing as rent receipts fall or sustainable housing solutions for low income earners in housing stress that no longer meet the eligibility criteria.
This move may well see some of the most disadvantaged in our community provided with public housing after a wait, but for those that were once eligible it might see them struggling even further, to the point where they eventually become eligible or they have to choose between a house or a job. If they earn a bit more than the cut-off mark and have great difficulty in accessing affordable and secure housing, surely there is incentive there for them to reduce their wage until they get in. Unfortunately, that will also reduce their capacity to become independent of government assistance. The message is: do not help yourself; stay dependent if you want government housing.
Rent receipts make up 63 per cent of total revenue coming into housing, and market renters alone make up 15 per cent at around $20 million. In 2001 market renters made up 22 per cent. This percentage has been steadily falling as people move and then houses sell. I was somewhat pleased to hear Mr Hargreaves admit in the estimates hearings that if the ACT government got rid of market renters it would lose the $20 million and that it currently has no way of finding the funds to replace it. This makes it obvious that we need market renters in the ACT housing system to provide a secure revenue source. Shortly after that I heard that Mr Hargreaves was behind a motion at the recent ALP conference that called for market renters to be relocated. I believe the ALP did not support the motion.
Unfortunately, community housing got very little or no increase in funding. The sector has previously expressed an interest in undertaking a greater role in the provision of affordable housing and the 2002 affordable housing taskforce recommended that the supply of affordable housing be increased partly through an expansion of the community-housing sector.
Increasing the size of community housing over time would also lead to economies of scale and efficiencies for the sector as a whole and for individual organisations. Community housing tenants have extremely high satisfaction levels, higher than for public housing, and it is certainly cheaper than public housing PPPs. I find it hard to understand why the government is not pursuing this cost effective option further.
The minister’s recent attack on community organisations that provide expert advice for the government on housing issues was embarrassing and unbecoming of a minister. He made imputations about the quality of work some organisations performed, their need for government funding and the government’s need for their expert advice. He has even gone as far as defunding some of these organisations by up to 50 per cent. I am coming to the conclusion that Mr Hargreaves has taken these steps not because he does not need their advice, but because he cannot handle their advice. He does not like the fact that they repeatedly call him to account and point out the areas in which his portfolio needs drastic improvement.
Cutting funding from community organisations, though small in the scheme of things, will do little to assist the ACT government’s intention to supply 90 new houses at a cost of $30 million. Rather, this move will diminish the capacity of the ACT community to
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .