Page 168 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 15 February 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
gas and electricity charges, it is important that people’s bills are manageable. That is something that has been raised time and time again by various groups on this issue.
Insufficient heating obviously also has an impact on people’s health. It is something that should be looked at as a preventative health measure. Having adequate warmth during winter improves people’s physical and mental health—we know that—and there is also a strong link between a sense of security, through minimum security standards, and mental health. These are all things which need to be taken account of.
I have to say that we have heard much about the costs of living from both the Labor and Liberal parties. Here is a bill that would have a significant long-term impact—long-term impacts on the cost of living have been raised time and time again by various groups as being a key issue that we have to consider for some of the most vulnerable people in the ACT, and that is who we are talking about here—yet neither the government nor the Liberal Party will support this bill.
I think it is worth pointing out that this bill has come about in response to campaigns by the Victorian Council of Social Service, a group which I think is highly applicable to refer to in this debate as it is a group that has direct contact with people in vulnerable positions every day. This is something they have been calling for, and the Tenants Union ACT, ACTCOSS here in the ACT, the Brotherhood of St Laurence and the Consumer Utilities Advocacy Centre are all groups who have that day-to-day contact with some of the most vulnerable people in the community and who are calling for this sort of bill.
Mr Corbell said no-one would disagree with the aims of the bill, but then went on to say that this bill is a blunt instrument. It would have been good if the government had engaged on this bill and worked with the Greens to support legislation that would help some of the most vulnerable people in our community. As I said, it is those people who suffer the most when it comes to substandard rental accommodation, who are in the least position to have any say or any choice in their accommodation and who need to have some assurances that the properties that they rent or that they go into will have appropriate standards of heating, cooling et cetera.
I do not really know where to start on what Mr Coe said in his speech—I will probably let Mr Rattenbury comment on most of what Mr Coe said—but he completely neglected to acknowledge and discuss one of the issues that has the biggest impact on people’s costs of living, which is living in substandard accommodation that is expensive to heat and cool. He somehow suggests that this is okay; that people can choose not to rent such properties. But the least vulnerable people cannot choose, because they are the only properties that they can afford to rent. He has completely neglected that in his speech.
As he has done on a number of occasions, particularly on Ms Le Couteur’s bill on companion animals when we debated it, he has failed to understand the detail or the substance of the bill. I think it is worth reiterating the groups that support this bill. I know I have just listed them, but it is groups like ACTCOSS and the Brotherhood of St Laurence in particular, who have that day-to-day contact with some of the most vulnerable and disadvantaged people in our community. They are calling for this bill,
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video