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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 1 Hansard (20 February) . . Page.. 338 ..

MS DUNDAS (continuing):

Hopefully, this debate, and another debate about housing in this chamber-after all the reports that have come down over the past year and over the past five years about the desperate need to address the situation of housing in the ACT-will lead to some real outcomes.

MR SMYTH (Leader of the Opposition) (4.30) It may interest Ms Tucker and other members to know that the original use of the $10 million Treasurer's advance that the Auditor-General says the Treasurer misused was, in fact, for the provision of service purchase payments for social housing. That money was effectively to be split 50/50 between public and community housing, and would have been spent on housing stock. We know this, Mr Speaker, because the then Under Treasurer told Mr Thompson of Urban Services, in his letter of 4 June 2002, which has already been tabled in this place, that the money was for social housing and that it would attract property tax equivalents.

So what happened? As far as I can make out-and I am happy to be corrected, perhaps somebody from the government benches would do so-the fear of audit problems, and nothing else, led to its use being changed to fire safety three weeks after the original decision was made. Indeed, as late as 12 June, Treasury officials were reminding Urban Services that the money had to be shared between public and community housing. One of the emails from an officer in Treasury to an officer in DUS says:

I seek leave to table that email.

Leave granted.

MR SMYTH: According to the list of ACT Housing properties to have fire upgrades, tabled by Mr Quinlan in December last year, and the document just tabled by Mrs Burke, some $4.5 million of the TA is to be spent on fire safety upgrades in buildings that ACT Housing wants to get rid of.

I would also like to point out to members that the key point about the liability issues raised by the Government Solicitor is not the need to spend money, but the need to have a management plan in place. I doubt there is any legal need to spend the $4.5 million on fire safety for ACT Housing properties that are marked for disposal.

There certainly are other needs. Let's not hide behind the excuse that there is a legal need. The question Ms Tucker might like to reflect on is how much housing stock could have been purchased if the $10 million had been spent on social housing, as originally intended; and, if the government had appropriated that money for this year as part of its budget, how many of the issues raised by Ms Tucker would have been solved? Then perhaps we would not have needed this MPI to occur today.

MS GALLAGHER (4.33): I also thank Ms Tucker for bringing this MPI to the Assembly today. I think Ms Tucker understands that I have many shared interests with her, in addressing disadvantage in our community.

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