Page 3602 - Week 08 - Friday, 24 August 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
One of the issues which I raised through the estimates process and report was around Housing ACT’s policies and practices for determining a minimum repayment amount for tenancy-related debts. Housing ACT said its policy stipulated that no tenant pay more than 30 per cent of their weekly income, including their rent and repayment of any debt. The issue raised by housing advocacy groups was that there was inflexibility in how this was applied, particularly if a tenant was not able to afford this amount. Representatives from the directorate said in estimates that they would be open to discussing having flexible payments applied, which was positive to hear. I hope this occurs in practice and is communicated to the housing advocacy groups who have raised concerns.
I would also like to go to the issue that I raised regarding implementing recommendations on repaying debt from the targeted assistance panel. Again, this was raised in the estimates report and in the hearings. A submission was made by the Welfare Rights and Legal Centre about the debt review committee and potentially reinstating this committee. The directorate seemed unaware of this request and this submission, but it was one that was made through that process by the targeted assistance panel.
With regard to debt repayment, the committee questioned whether the government would be implementing a recommendation from the targeted assistance strategy panel that debt waiver and partial debt waiver be used as a form of assistance where people have little or no capacity to pay and where the debt would prolong or compound financial hardship. I think the minister did say at the time—although I stand to be corrected—that they were looking at implementing these recommendations. I do hope this occurs. Obviously this issue has been raised by a number of housing advocacy organisations when people do not have the capacity to pay. I hope we see that recommendation implemented.
I also asked some questions on the Spotless contract, in particular the social component of the contract and what guarantees the directorate had in place to ensure that there would be adequate employment opportunities given to young people, people with disabilities, public housing tenants and people from an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander background, as is required. I should say that Spotless was recently awarded this particular component of the contract. The representative from CSD said it had set minimum employment targets and that the contract would default if they were not met. I hope this is diligently monitored and that government also considers, or does not rule out, the possibility of involving providers who are specialists in providing targeted social employment.
With regard to FirstPoint, the government advised through estimates that a review of the service would be conducted by the Australian Catholic University. The community sector definitely want to be involved in this review because they are the ones, I guess, who every day come into contact with people who are homeless, requiring emergency accommodation or requiring public housing and other forms of social housing. They have very valuable feedback and input to provide to this process.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video