Page 1731 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 21 August 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The ACT government’s initiatives relating to CHC are entirely consistent with the current CSHA. Moreover, the approach being taken by the government reflects the work that has been done on a national basis, with the agreement of all housing ministers—and, incidentally, the commonwealth does not have a housing minister—
Mr Corbell: Shame!
MR HARGREAVES: Yes, more is the pity. As I was saying, there has been agreement of all housing ministers to implement a framework for affordable housing in the lead-up to the renegotiation of a new national housing agreement. In doing so, this government, unlike the commonwealth, recognises the balance between the social priorities and the bricks and mortar outcomes of social housing in the community.
The Stanhope Labor government has demonstrated its unwavering commitment to public and community housing through the investment of significant funds and the implementation of a series of reforms to public housing which ensure that public housing is directed to those people in our community who are most in need. We have invested $30 million over three years to increase public housing stock; as was mentioned earlier, we have transferred $40 million to Community Housing Canberra in head leases to show confidence in the community housing sector; and we have provided $50 million in revolving credit to grow the community housing sector by nearly 100 per cent.
Our commitment stands in stark contrast to that of the commonwealth government, which has shown nothing but disdain for the delivery of public housing across Australia. This is demonstrated by the announcement by the commonwealth minister for families and community services, Mal Brough, in July 2007 that tenders would be invited from the private sector, the not-for-profit sector and builders to compete for the commonwealth-state housing agreement funds that are currently paid to state and territory governments for the provision of social housing.
This announcement flies in the face of the undertaking by Mr Brough’s junior minister, Nigel Scullion, at the meeting of all housing ministers in Darwin in early July that he would work with the states and territories on a new agreement. Indeed, negotiations for the new 2008 CSHA had already commenced in good faith between the states and territories and the Australian government to determine the future directions for the agreement.
The states and territories have developed a six-point plan as the basis for negotiating the 2008 CSHA. The six-point plan included proposals to increase the supply of social housing and affordable housing and also to ensure the sustainability of the existing social housing system.
If the commonwealth is going to focus simply on the issue of increasing stock numbers, there is a real risk to the capacity of states and territories to support public housing. Whilst it is true that the Australian government provides a significant amount to fund public housing—17 per cent or just over $18 million—through its grants under the CSHA, most of the funding for public housing comes from the rent from public housing tenants—64 per cent of it.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .