Page 780 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 1 May 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Let us have a little go at Dr Foskey. She says that we will cause more distress and misery but did not back it up. She says the government is giving priority or advantage to tenants on a high income, but the fact that we are giving advantage to tenants on high income is being ignored. What does she think this package is all about? This package is about those 1,018 people on the waiting list, people who are fleeing from domestic violence, people with kids with a mental illness, people with physical disability who could not get a job in a pink fit and are trying to get into homes, while those sitting on $80,000 a year enjoy public housing. For Dr Foskey’s benefit, that is what the package is all about.
What is it that we want to do? We want to have people purchase their homes so that we can recycle money. Dr Foskey says her constituents talked about not having the deposit; they are worried about the word “eviction”. Firstly, those on over $80,000 a year can exist in a private market and they can exist in a private rental marketplace. People on $50,000 to $80,000 now have access to shared equity that they did not have before. So where is this “cannot afford the deposit” business? If they are earning between $0 and $50,000 there is going to be no change in their circumstances anyway because they are under the limit. If someone is hitting $45,000 to $48,000 we would see whether we could help them out with the shared equity scheme.
From where I am sitting, it is all about self-interest ruling. What was the first thing? Dr Foskey did not attend the briefing. She sent one of her staff members and popped in at the last minute. What was the first comment she made when she walked out the door? “It was a shame shared equity was not in when I was trying to shoulder all of that pressure,” because she could have bought the house she was in. What an absolute change and turnaround this is! She is being critical for her own sake. She has made a complete mess of it.
I thank some members for their comments on the bill. This is an important piece of legislation which will establish a contemporary framework for the provision of social housing services in the territory. I have indicated in the presentation speech already the details of the provisions of the bill.
Rather than repeat all of that, I refer to the comments by the scrutiny of bills committee. As members would remember, the scrutiny of bills committee made comments about certain aspects of the bill in its report issued in February 2007. In particular, they commented on the provisions relating to personal information and transitional arrangements. With regard to the provisions which seek to protect personal information, I responded to the committee and indicated the government believes that the right to privacy for this class of people outweighs the right of people to gain access to a list of housing assistance projects. That was in response to Mrs Burke wanting to get the list of names and addresses of everybody living in public housing, which would have appalled everybody.
As I stated earlier, as the largest landlord in the territory with the most complex group of tenants, the government is particularly concerned to ensure that housing assistance recipients are able to conduct their lives free from possible harassment, direct mail or other forms of uninvited attention, like a visit from Mrs Burke or a visit from Dr Foskey. Nothing would frighten me more! We believe that this provision is a proportionate response to such matters.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .