Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 2 Hansard (1 March) . . Page.. 458 ..

MS TUCKER: I am just having some amendments circulated. The first amendment seeks to change Mr Moore's proposed amendments in a way that would not negate the disallowance motion that Mr Wood has put today. My second amendment is consequential upon my amendment to Mr Moore's amendments getting up and is designed to fix up Mr Wood's motion. I hope that members are clear on what I am seeking to do. The reason I am doing it is that I see some benefit in Mr Moore's amendments, but I am very concerned about the whole direction of the government in this area of public housing. That is why I will be supporting Mr Wood's motion of disallowance. But I would prefer to be able to support Mr Moore's slight improvement on the government's very unacceptable position on public housing. I notice that Mr Rugendyke is here now, so I will sit down so that he can speak if he wants. If not, I will keep speaking.

Mr Moore: Have you circulated your amendments?

MS TUCKER: They are being circulated at this point in time. I did not realise what Mr Moore was doing, but it is hard to keep up with the various issues in the chamber. Apparently, Mr Moore did make quite clear that he wanted, through his amendments, to cancel out Mr Wood's motion. As I said, my amendments will deal with that problem and members will have the opportunity of supporting Mr Moore's amendments as well as Mr Wood's motion.

Mr Moore: Is that the thrust of your amendments?

MS TUCKER: Mr Moore, I am seeking to amend your amendments so that they do not disallow Mr Wood's motion. I understand that my amendments will be circulated in a moment.

I did not cover a few points in my initial speech. As Mr Rugendyke does not want to speak and Mr Osborne is not here, I will raise now a few more issues about why I am concerned about this whole approach to government housing.

Another of the problematic changes is the new clause 18, which allows the Commissioner for Housing to require a tenant to move if the commissioner decides that their dwelling is excess to their needs following a change in householder composition. The commissioner may require a tenant to move on this basis at any time after their first review and at any time that a tenant breaches in any way their tenancy agreement. Obviously, a vulnerability and a lack of stability will result from that.

There are questions about what is a breach. The clause does not refer to a serious breach; it refers to any breach. The pressure on people living together to continue to live together so that persons will not be left behind and forced to move into a new house is another issue. At least, tenants forced to move in this way will be exempt from the new regime introduced by this program variation.

When a transfer is requested because of extra children in the family, the old tenancy agreement will continue. However, the definition applies only to children of the tenant or his or her spouse. We hear time and again about extended family relationships, particularly among the indigenous community, and this definition is unduly narrow. Again, it seems not to have been thought through.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .