Page 724 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 1 May 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
State Housing Agreement, to those Canberrans most in need for he duration of that need.
Mr Speaker, I am a firm believer in the provision of adequate and well-managed public and community housing in the ACT. We are a small jurisdiction that may not face the most difficulty, compared to other states or territories, in providing suitable social housing options to needy Canberrans. However, this should mean that with the right legislative measures in place, coupled with sound management practices, anyone should be given the best possible support from the housing assistance program to access accommodation options in a rapid and responsive manner.
I note with great interest that some of the “main objects” of the legislation canvas issues such as ensuring that all Canberrans have access to housing that is affordable, secure and appropriate to their needs for the duration of that need. In turn, it is certainly encouraging to see that this government has recognised in the legislation that it must facilitate “the provision of housing assistance for those most in need”—as I said, as stated in the commonwealth, state and territory housing agreement. This is an issue which I, as shadow housing minister, have made very clear many times publicly over the past few years.
I was interested to learn yesterday that ACTCOSS wrote to the Stanhope government to outline some apparent concern with this bill. They went to quite extensive trouble and I have taken the liberty of emailing them to thank them for their input. Apparently there was not sufficient exposure of the bill for public consultation or comment. I would certainly be interested to listen to the minister’s viewpoint on what ACTCOSS has raised in relation to the consultation process and the issue of a lack of good governance by the Stanhope government.
In their quite strong statement, ACTCOSS infers “that ACT government public and community housing policy currently appears to be developed in a disjointed and reactive manner, rather than within a strategic framework that clearly articulates the principles and policy direction the government wishes to pursue”. I would like to believe that changes to the legislation and other recent changes to government housing policy have not been made without adherence to government guidelines on consultation or policy development processes. As I have said, I would appreciate hearing the minister’s view on this issue raised by ACTCOSS. It is a very courageous call to infer that the Stanhope government is developing policy in isolation but I really have to join with ACTCOSS and say that good, open and accountable governance has not been a hallmark of this government and is certainly not its strongest point to date. I am almost certain that the Canberra community would expect that a broader consultation process should have been undertaken.
However, I do not agree with ACTCOSS’s assertion that there is not a need to specify prescribed terms in relation to “eligibility criteria” to access the housing assistance program. Regardless of who governs in the ACT, it is the responsibility of the Minister for Housing to make a clear distinction about who should be eligible to have access to and sustain a Housing ACT tenancy agreement. The concept of providing public housing should not be centred around universal access. We are a small jurisdiction and in relation to other states or territories we allocate a quite modest budget for social housing. Given that housing assistance should be for those in
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .