Page 159 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 23 February 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I think that very clearly indicates the concern that I have about ensuring that public housing does not become marginalised; that public housing is simply part and parcel of the housing in the ACT; that public housing is not just welfare housing, but is housing that is owned by the public at large and is not considered in some way to be lesser housing and that in some way people are marginalised by so living. The fact that we do have our public housing distributed throughout the suburbs in the ACT, with a couple of exceptions that Mr Connolly mentioned, it seems to me, is a very positive thing.
The arguments by Mr Cornwell in presenting this Bill do carry some weight. There is no doubt about the notion of a tenant's right to purchase. I suppose that is the system that most of us feel comfortable with. There are many occasions when there is absolutely no problem with that; when in fact the Housing Trust can see that its stock is not going to be depleted when somebody seeks to purchase their house. That does already happen and it is an appropriate way to go. It is also appropriate that the Housing Trust retain control of this stock and ensure that it is evenly dispersed throughout the suburbs. For that reason, Madam Speaker, I shall be opposing this Bill.
MS SZUTY (11.47): Madam Speaker, like Mr Moore, I believe that the stated objectives behind Mr Cornwell's amendment Bill seem admirable - to shorten the waiting list for ACT Housing Trust rental accommodation and to enable people to purchase their own homes. However, Madam Speaker, I disagree with his methods of achieving this. I do not agree that allowing the purchase of Housing Trust properties after eight years now, from what Mr Connolly said this morning, is too onerous, and I disagree with the formula presented that says that a purchaser would have to be 25 years old at the beginning of their rental contract to become eligible to purchase trust housing under the present arrangements. Factored into this equation is the premise that a home loan term must be 25 years, and that the purchaser will need to have paid off the mortgage by age 65. Firstly, home loans today are more flexible, allowing repayment after periods as short as 10 to 14 years. Secondly, many people retire before they have paid off their mortgages and use part of their superannuation lump sum pay-out to finalise the purchase of their homes. I therefore do not feel that Mr Cornwell's attempt to support this Bill with that particular argument has been successful.
More fundamentally, the proposal that the trust should be disposing of its assets in this way is short-sighted. The trust at present, from Mr Cornwell's own figures, indicates that 80 per cent of its tenants are eligible for rental rebates. The 20 per cent of tenants who are paying full rental are in fact cross-subsidising those people receiving rebates, providing much needed recurrent funds for the trust with which it can manage its properties. To remove this source of funds would mean that the ACT Government would eventually have to pay for more of the repairs, maintenance and other debts incurred by the trust. I know that this issue is one close to Mr Cornwell's heart, because he has talked about it before; but I am surprised that he does not see that, if the number of full rental paying tenants is decreased, as a consequence subsidisation from government must increase.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .