Page 778 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 1 May 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Throughout that whole process, I was hoping we would have a policy debate, yet even now the Property Council’s Catherine Carter has chosen to attack me in the media on this issue in an attempt to paint the policy position of the Greens as personal sour grapes on my behalf. Frankly, Canberra deserves a better debate than that. I remind the Assembly that I am not alone in these views.
Security of tenure in public housing has been a long-held position of both the Greens and the ACT Labor Party. Ripping it up will tear the social fabric of many of our suburbs. It is also the strong view of a number of tenants who have contacted my office in the last week. They are distressed both at the manner in which the news has come that they may lose their homes in one way or another and that there are no principles or guidelines in evidence about how this process will be managed. They are cautious about going public because they fear recrimination.
One woman who rang my office said, “We are being punished for battling and for paying our rent and for making no trouble. Who are the people who will be most affected?” It will be women in their 50s. “Lots of us”—and I am quoting here—“were single mums; we brought up our kids.”
Mrs Burke: Ridiculous.
DR FOSKEY: I am quoting a constituent, Jacqui; you would not speak like that about a constituent, would you? “We’ve done our time. Now we might have a job. We are doing okay.” At last! But they do not have the deposit. To quote again: “The threat of eviction; it is a word bandied about now. There’s a punitive sound to it. Our crime is that we paid our rent on time. Now we will be punished for living in our homes.” This is not a sexy group.
This policy will do two things for people. Some it will push out into the market; others it will move from their homes to a stand-up coffin, as one caller put it. She spoke very powerfully about the health issues, physical and mental, that can result from this policy—a policy that will end up targeting older and middle-aged women, some of whom are quite fragile.
Quoting again: “In your mid-50s, this is a horrible thing to face. Once a month my son comes to visit from Sydney, stays in his old bedroom. I would never see him or my grandkids if I lived in a one-bedroom place.” Again: “People more successful expect to have their family around them but our communities and our families do not count. Why aren’t we entitled to the basic facilities for sustaining a family connection?” The view of these people is that these older, single women have no right to normal expectations of home, family and stability. Mr Hargreaves has often said, “We do not just give you a government house; we give you a home.”
I have been asked whether Housing ACT have done a social or health analysis. Have they considered the physical and mental deterioration when people are forced out of their homes? Have they looked at the cost, economic and social? It is not just that demographic that is vulnerable. There are couples on about $40,000 a year each, and there are more complex family arrangements that might push people over one line or another.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .