Page 2512 - Week 08 - Thursday, 30 August 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The minister has revealed that this scheme applies to those tenants who fail to pay their rent—
Mr Hargreaves: If Centrelink is breached.
MR MULCAHY: I am coming to that, minister—because they have lost their Centrelink allowances for the fortnight for breaching the terms of their allowances. This is quite an amazing revelation. It shows that the minister and Housing ACT are, in effect, granting special treatment to those who have breached Centrelink rules that are designed to ensure that welfare benefits come with reasonable obligations attached to them. Meanwhile, those public housing tenants who play by the rules, those public housing tenants who comply with the requirements of their Centrelink allowances, have to pay their rent. So it is an extraordinary situation and it raises a lot of questions about the message that the policy sends out.
There are also signs that there is scope for improvement by the government in the allocation of public housing. In an estimates committee hearing on 21 June, the minister gave a breakdown of the numbers of public housing tenants that are below, at or above their entitlements in terms of the number of bedrooms that they are entitled to under the public housing rules. According to the minister, there are 3,872 public housing tenants that are within their entitlement—that is, the accommodation they have been allocated has the correct number of bedrooms for their family size. There are 3,266 public housing tenants that are one bedroom over their entitlement and there are 1,229 people who are two or more bedrooms over their entitlement. That means there are at least 5,724 spare bedrooms that are allocated to public housing tenants in excess of their entitlements under the rules. Meanwhile, there are 651 public housing tenants that are under their entitlement. This incongruity shows that there is scope within the system for improvement in allocations.
I note that when our own Dr Foskey finally removed herself from public housing during her time in the Assembly, as a paid member of this Assembly, the inner south property in the rather affluent suburb of Yarralumla in which she had lived was sold off in order to purchase accommodation that was more appropriate for the needs of public housing tenants. The government deserves commendation for that. This is an appropriate approach. Properties not filling the needs of the community should be replaced with those that do.
I am not so naive as to say that I do not understand that it is not possible to create a perfect world. Of course, we understand that there will always be some disparity involved here. The residences available for public housing will not always perfectly fit the size of tenant families. Nevertheless, the spare capacity of at least 5,724 bedrooms for those tenants that are over their entitlements should give some scope for better planning and better allocation.
I understand that my colleague Mrs Burke sees a procession of people seeking help in relation to public housing. Whilst I am not suggesting that we will ever get a perfect match, those figures leave one with a very firm view that there is considerable scope for improvement, even if we were to solve the problem of the 651 who are under their entitlement as a first target.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .