Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . Search

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 12 Hansard (20 November) . . Page.. 4406..


MS TUCKER (continuing):

I note that these point very clearly to a need for investment in this really essential aspect of public service. I will remind members, or inform them if they are not aware of it, of the Affordable Housing in Australia: Pressing Need, Effective Solution document put together by the Housing Industry Association, the Australian Council of Social Service, the Real Estate Institute, the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the National Community Housing Forum, the Urban Development Institute, the Property Council, the Royal Australian Institute of Architects, the Master Builders Association and the Royal Australian Planning Institute. They recommended, and I quote:

Option 1. A direct government subsidy for private (debt) investment in affordable housing. Governments would raise finance for affordable housing through the issue of a bond with a guaranteed minimum after-tax return. The funds would then be

distributed to State housing authorities or other eligible housing providers (e.g. community housing providers) on the condition that they are used to construct affordable rental dwellings. The dwellings would then be owned and managed by State housing authorities or other approved providers. The subsidy could be provided in two ways: via a tax concession, or through a Budget outlay.

On the measures of efficiency and equity and effectiveness, Option 1 rates very highly. This option removes most of the risks perceived by institutional investors by transferring them to the government. Based on the Commonwealth's preference for outlays rather than tax expenditures when providing assistance, a Budget outlay, which can be capped, is the proposed delivery method. Option 1 achieves a high score as it ranks favourably against the majority of assessment criteria.

Obviously, I have been raising this. The Treasurer is not here. He is the person I am speaking to at this point. Hopefully, he is listening upstairs, or his staff can tell him. I am sure he will be fascinated that I have raised this suggestion again. Thank you.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Sitting suspended from 12.27 to 2.30 pm.

Questions without notice

Code of conduct

MR SMYTH: My question is to the Chief Minister, Mr Stanhope. Minister, after two years, and counting, you have still not developed a code of conduct for your ministers, despite a promise in December 2001 to have it substantially completed by March 2002. In the interim, we have seen this Assembly censure Mr Corbell for not implementing a motion passed on Nettlefold Street, we have had a privileges committee find him guilty of contempt and we have had this Assembly express grave concern this week at his appalling conduct.

Minister, will your ministerial code of conduct-when you eventually complete and publish it-state that ministers have a responsibility to implement decisions of the Assembly where possible and provide for real sanctions for contempt of the Assembly?

MR STANHOPE: The ministerial code of conduct is essentially complete. I anticipate taking it to cabinet within the next couple of weeks. Once cabinet approves it, we will release it.


Next page . . . . Previous page. . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . Search