Page 4480 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 14 October 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The key difference here between the viability for community housing providers and affordable housing providers is the assets or credit that they can draw on to maintain a level of financial viability. Such assets and credit have been provided by the ACT government to the affordable housing provider but not to community housing providers. Does this therefore mean that the government will only support non-government housing providers where there is assurance that they will not also have to provide some kind of social assistance to the tenant?
Along with the commonwealth stimulus spending, it is generally understood across the sector that new community housing providers are coming into the ACT market. The other part of this equation is people—the residents or tenants who are likely to inhabit these homes. ACT Shelter last month produced a report which pointed to the growing number of Canberrans stuck in crisis accommodation because the rental market is too expensive. The report found that this rental trap is putting pressure on the public housing sector and that, as a result, there is a growing shortage of emergency housing. ACT Shelter also found:
In the ACT we have the highest private rents in the country and so the private rental market is not really a viable option for people leaving crisis services here as it is in other jurisdictions.
Even the so-called “affordable housing” option where homes are available at 75 per cent of market rent is now out of reach of many people in Canberra who no longer qualify for or cannot access public housing. Consequently, we need to review the role of non-government housing providers in the ACT and ensure that the funding model they are required to work with gives them scope to manage their property successfully and provide realistic medium and long-term housing options for Canberra people trapped in the lower end of the rental market.
I have to say that some parties are somewhat suspicious of the ACT government’s approach to supporting the non-government housing sector, and the government does have significant power in this arena. It has been government decisions that have set the funding parameters, the ownership arrangements and so on. That is why it is important to ensure that there is an independent and transparent process to compare the fundamental arrangements that govern the various non-government housing services.
I understand that the Liberal Party are concerned that this motion will incur unnecessary expense. I believe that, having regard to the way it is written, the Australian government’s KPMG report, if it is delivered in time, can feed into the analysis that this motion is calling for. We will be happy to work collaboratively with both the Labor and Liberal parties in order to make sure we are as efficient as possible.
We have asked that the advice be made available to the Assembly by the December sittings this year. The reason for this is that things are changing very quickly right now in the non-government housing sector, and the resulting advice and information will be very important to the sector. I commend the motion to the Assembly.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .