Page 550 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 17 February 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
We will meet the baseline number, as we have stated. I would like to remind the Assembly of what housing renewal means for tenants moving out of old, outdated homes. It means more comfortable and modern homes, better suited to ageing in place, and in smaller developments where community safety is built into the design.
On a couple of other criticisms of the original motion: firstly, the reference to unmet accommodation needs neglects the fact that the ACT has the highest rate of people in supported accommodation—31 per 10,000 against a national average of 10 per 10,000. It also overlooks a specific caution in the report that central intake services like First Point often give a picture of higher unmet need and may not be comparable to other jurisdictions. Our central intake service is, indeed, one of the reasons why we have such a good picture of the homelessness challenge here in the ACT.
Secondly, the reference to recurrent costs of homelessness services overlooks the fact that our daily support cost is actually the second lowest at $25.48. What separates the ACT is our longer periods of support, which typically result in better outcomes. For example, the ACT performs nearly 10 per cent better than average on getting young people access to education and training. These services are of great value in our community. Housing ministers around the country are looking to shore up future funding under the national partnership on homelessness, and this is a focus that I will be taking to an upcoming meeting of ministers next month.
Of course, we also need to think about different levels of government when we are talking about housing affordability. There are steps all governments can take, and we have responded locally over a number of years, particularly through land supply under the affordable housing action plan. The government has released nearly double the number of dwelling sites in the five years to 2013-14 compared to the previous five years, and we have a 20 per cent affordable housing commitment in new estate developments.
However, tackling housing supply is only part of the solution and considerable work is now underway to address the demand-side issues. A range of possible housing policy options has been identified and focus on three key challenges: increasing affordable home ownership; increasing affordable rental housing; and better targeting housing assistance. As my amendment makes clear, these are issues facing every state and territory. More so, they are issues with national policy implications. They need to be addressed at the national level, and I have welcomed the engagement by both sides of federal politics in the housing affordability debate.
The need for coordinated action across all tiers of government has been recognised through the COAG forum and the commonwealth-led affordable housing working group has resulted from this. While all jurisdictions are affected by housing affordability, it is important that the views and experience of the ACT are considered by the working group. Therefore, the amended motion points to the need for a submission by the ACT to this group. It will capture the key aspects of housing affordability, both locally and nationally, and the government will be happy to table this submission for all members to read.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video