Page 3084 - Week 08 - Thursday, 25 June 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
new housing developer players. The biggest player, of course, in the process is Housing ACT. The Greens are certainly pleased to see Housing ACT able to increase its stock. Obviously, we have already had some discussion tonight about the target of 10 per cent of ACT housing stock being in the hands of public housing.
I just go again to recent figures printed in the Canberra Times which show a substantial increase in the number of people in the high needs category on the waiting list and the number of days they can expect to remain on that list. I know the housing minister did bristle—I think the word probably is “bristle”—at some of the suggestions we have made, and has suggested that the Greens are not committed to ensuring that the most disadvantaged people are housed, but I think he understands what our intentions are.
Just referring to Mr Coe’s comments and this notion of referring to the most needy, I am not sure if we are suggesting that a number of people on that list are not needy. The people on the priority listing still have very complex needs. As we have said, people with complex needs quite obviously and rightly need access to safe, secure and appropriate housing and the services that go with them. In addition to housing those with the highest and complex needs, Housing ACT would be more socially and financially viable with a wider range of tenants. I think I did hear the minister comment to Mr Coe about market renters. Market renters do actually enable public housing stock to be kept at a certain level. That enables people with these various complex needs to go into housing to have those support services.
We have this notion that, yes, community housing has something to offer people, it is very significant and we are very supportive of groups, in particular like Havelock. But public housing is essential. There are always going to be people who, for whatever reason—often it might be in relation to mental health issues, domestic violence or other matters in their life—will not be able to afford to buy a home. That is something we would like to see. We have the white paper that the federal government brought out too. I think that is why we have ended up with this federal stimulus funding: we recognise that there is a major issue in relation to housing, particularly for people who are vulnerable.
With the financial situation we now find ourselves in, that list shows that there are going to be different sorts of people who will need access to housing. I think that to have this notion that we should not be having public housing, there is obviously a philosophical reason behind it with the Liberal Party. But I really just do not understand their thinking in saying we should not have public housing, which is essentially what they are saying, because there is a high need there in the community.
I think the comments that Mr Coe has made are very disappointing and quite disturbing in a way. I also refer to that $900 million. We have never said that we want that 10 per cent to happen all at once. We recognise that it is something we have to move towards. We have also recognised that that federal stimulus funding is going to make a significant contribution towards that. If Mr Coe had looked further down that page he was referring to, I think it actually said the annual cost would be something around $3 million. I just think that needs to be clarified.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .