Page 1773 - Week 05 - Thursday, 2 April 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
community housing sector. I am somewhat uncertain as to what the minister is proposing with his due consultative forum and am cautious as to whether it may redirect our previous agreement on the government conducting a low-emissions consultative forum and ongoing engagement with community organisations.
I know that many community organisations are very pleased with the previously agreed approach and are eagerly awaiting the government’s announcement on where and when the forums will take place. I do, however, welcome the government’s commitment to a multi-partisan approach and look forward to the minister’s engagement with the Greens and Liberals on these issues. I also hope that there is a realisation that, by passing this motion, it does not mean that the Greens and Liberals give their support to Labor’s way forward, which is not yet known. The amendments I propose welcome an approach by Labor that seeks consensus and incorporates ideas put forward by all three parties.
Item (4) is new and can be agreed to as is. The social housing component of the federal government’s stimulus package will deliver many benefits to the vulnerable people of Canberra and can move the ACT government towards reaching the goal of 10 per cent of housing being public housing. This is a goal that the government has agreed to in the parliamentary agreement. There will also be great benefits in seeing a percentage of the housing delivered by community housing, as has been indicated by the federal Minister for Housing.
Finally, on point (5), the proposal was already essentially achieved by my motion and I do wonder again why the government wants us to do it again. My motion said that we recognise that the nation building and jobs plan must meet the requirements of and be delivered within the time frame set by the commonwealth. Unless the minister can give us a good reason for voting for a change of words from “recognises” to “supports” the time lines, I am inclined to vote for the phrase “recognises” a second time.
I do also want to note that, as the minister has said, we recognise what a major and significant investment in social and public housing this federal government funding represents. Having worked in mental health and with regard to consumer health issues for the last four years or so, I think I recognise quite acutely how important providing housing is to people, particularly those who are vulnerable. By making reference to the housing project for mental health, I hope that we will see this type of initiative delivered through this federal funding. And obviously, as the minister has also said and as I have said before in the chamber, we must provide those other services to people who are vulnerable, including people with mental illness in particular, that address all areas of their life because, unless we address housing and other areas, we are not going to address the core of the problem, which is the condition which they are suffering. I, like I think all, recognise what a significant investment this is.
MR COE (Ginninderra) (11.38): Like, I am sure, all people in this chamber and all people watching or listening, I think there is a strong sense of deja vu when you think about the motion that was moved on 25 March, last Wednesday. We discussed a very similar motion. It is almost word for word, I think, and the intent is at least very similar.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .