Page 1368 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 25 March 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Assembly we need to give that person an opportunity to have a home. And that is what this is all about. Regretfully for the Liberals, I cannot support their amendment but I do again thank Mr Coe for his good intention and for giving us the time.
MR COE (Ginninderra) (6.23): I move the following amendment to Ms Bresnan’s proposed amendments:
Omit paragraph (2), substitute:
“(2) calls on the Government to:
(a) support the community and social housing sector by frequently and regularly engaging with providers to discuss issues of concern, including:
(i) energy and environmental standards;
(ii) Nation Building and Jobs Plan investment;
(iii) maintenance;
(iv) acquisition; and
(v) other relevant issues; and
(b) ensure that a majority of the Nation Building and Jobs Plan investment is committed to community housing including both nationally accredited organisations in the ACT.”.
This issue is one of particular importance to the people of Canberra and it is a very timely issue as well. The federal government’s stimulus package included $6.4 billion for public and community housing, and that is of course time-critical, as were all other components of the stimulus package. The money has been set aside for social housing. The federal Minister for Housing Tanya Plibersek said very clearly that it was to go to “social housing”. “Social housing” is a broad term and does not necessarily mean only public housing. It is a broad term and it is very important to note that she did in fact say “social housing” and not “public housing”. If the intention was that 100 per cent of the money in all circumstances would go to public housing, she would have said that. Instead, she said “social housing”. Social housing would include public housing but it would also include community housing.
I understand that we are very much in the hands of the federal government when it comes down to this sort of money and perhaps how it can be spent. However, I do understand that there is some scope to tinker with the breakdown of the money so you can determine whether it goes 100 per cent to public housing, 100 per cent to community housing, or whatever the case may be, whatever the breakdown might be. So I think it is very important that the ACT government gets the balance right between investing in community housing and investing in public housing.
While we are talking about community housing, I would like to draw the Assembly’s attention to the good work done at Havelock Housing and also by Community
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .