Page 1951 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 15 June 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The tenant of a dwelling is entitled to purchase the dwelling if -
then there is a series of other things -
(d) the ACT Housing Trust agrees.
It is a very important amendment, Madam Speaker. The critical changes are that a tenant has resided in the dwelling for a period of not less than five years - the proposal was to change that, if my memory serves me correctly, from eight years to five years - and that the Housing Trust agrees. The critical factor in terms of the Housing Trust agreeing does change the whole tenor of this debate. One of the circumstances about this issue is that the Housing Trust must be able to ensure that public housing is evenly distributed throughout the city. I think that is a critical factor.
Let me explain to you, Madam Speaker, why I believe that to be the case. Towards the end of last year I was privileged to meet with Lee Brown, the person in the Clinton Administration who looks after drugs policy. In the discussions with him I was pointing out that drugs policy is difficult to deal with in isolation and that the social background and sociological setting of such policies is absolutely critical. I drew attention to the fact that we have public housing throughout almost all suburbs in Canberra. He was absolutely flabbergasted and responded by saying, "If I had that I would have hardly any of the problems that I have now". The problem that he has to deal with is not just drugs policy in the States. Mr Brown is a black man and he understands the problems of minorities in the United States who are marginalised in ghettos in the cities. That, of course, is where they have their worst drug problems. Madam Speaker, you resolve many social problems by ensuring that people are integrated, not segregated. The amendment that Mr Cornwell has foreshadowed deals with the Housing Trust retaining that policy to ensure that people are integrated throughout our suburbs when they are in public housing.
Madam Speaker, I have used the term "public housing" very deliberately because we have a tendency, sometimes, to fail to understand the difference between welfare housing and public housing. In this case we have a situation where the Government, the Housing Trust, is the landlord. Some people, although they are in public housing at a time when they are not so well off, then manage to do well and pay commercial rents for their properties. That commercial rent, that increase in value, goes to the landlord and helps the Housing Trust to pay for people who are in public housing from a welfare perspective. That is something that I value very highly. It also means that people who are in public housing are not regarded always as welfare recipients. People simply do not know whether somebody is in public housing for welfare reasons. Around me I know a number of houses that are public housing residences, but I have no idea whether the tenants are there in terms of their welfare or in terms of it being a public housing area.
It is also important, I think, that tenants in public housing who make a house their home do have a prerogative to buy it if that fits into the general plan of the Housing Trust and does retain the integration. It is for those reasons, Madam Speaker, that this Bill has some attraction for me. It sets the tone that residents do have that prerogative to apply to become the owner of the home. When such homes are purchased at market value the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .