Page 2764 - Week 08 - Thursday, 24 August 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
provide free and frank advice to the minister about housing. Does the government prefer to pay big dollars to consultants because they will toe the line?
To move on to the funding dedicated to asset management and the purchase of new stock, the ACT government is claiming that it is going to provide $30 million to increase the size of public housing stock by some 90 residences. But I think many will doubt this figure, as some $18 million will be delivered through ACT Housing efficiencies. This begs such questions as: what is to be cut; what happens if the efficiencies are not achieved; how does it mix with the 500 houses Housing ACT is considering selling and will this result in net loss or net gain of properties? Unfortunately, the minister was unable, or unwilling, to answer this final question during estimates. We are left wondering.
Finally, we have learnt since the budget was delivered that ACT Housing shopfronts are to close. What will this do to improve the access of already disadvantaged residents to necessary government services? The budget was very light on this detail.
There are several ways in which the ACT government can improve the long-term viability of its housing portfolio and I am very glad to see it is starting to do something via its new taskforce. The Chief Minister has indicated his intention to set up an affordable housing task force within CMD. It is my impression that the task force will not focus on public housing but rather the manner in which the ACT government can encourage the supply of affordable housing in the private market. If it can achieve this, it will make a big difference in relieving the high demand for public housing, not just home ownership.
The real question is whether or not this task force can deliver something that actually changes the situation we face. We need an implementation plan with targets and timelines. We need innovative solutions that engage with the private market. We need a minister that will take responsibility, listen to advice and criticism and provide leadership.
MR HARGREAVES (Brindabella—Minister for the Territory and Municipal Services, Minister for Housing and Minister for Multicultural Affairs) (12.36 am): I wanted to start by drawing a bit of a comparison here. Mrs Burke questioned whether we were going to get the 90 properties for the $30 million and whether in fact that is enough. She questioned our intentions around the 500 homes, saying, “It is not enough.” We agree with her in a way; that is why we have these other strategies in place. But this contrasts, I have to tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, with the dissenting report put in by your good self and Mr Smyth. I will read from page 13 of the dissenting report, at paragraph 3.10. I will leave out little bits which are irrelevant. You can look for yourself. It says:
Indeed, the analysis by the Canberra Times—amongst other commentators—asks why the Stanhope Government chose to retain a number of questionable spending decisions, such as … retaining the quantum of public housing stock …
I imagine that, because that article has been quoted in your dissenting report, there is a suggestion by the two Liberal members of the estimates committee that retaining the quantum of public housing stock is in fact a questionable spending decision. That contrasts with what Mrs Burke has just told us, in my view. I do not quite know whom to
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .