Page 2513 - Week 08 - Thursday, 30 August 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The government has fallen substantially below its target of 85 per cent of routine vacant properties being re-let within 28 days. The government managed to re-let only 70 per cent of these properties within 28 days. Similarly, for properties undergoing refurbishment, the government has fallen substantially below its target of 90 per cent being re-let within agreed program milestones. The government managed to re-let only 70 per cent of these properties within these time frames. This also contributes to having less available public housing for the people of Canberra.
I cannot talk about the housing appropriation without making some reference to Fraser Court, in the heart of my electorate. My colleague Mrs Burke has highlighted serious concerns with the current state of Fraser Court and with the government’s slow progress in planning to redevelop this facility. So far, we have not seen a clear time line for progress on this facility, which has become an eyesore in an area which is undergoing enormous development and which has quite a number of tourist facilities. Instead, we have seen an expensive government asset underutilised. We are still awaiting clear answers from the minister on when there will be progress on Fraser Court.
In terms of other areas of public housing in the ACT where there are reports of problems, a number of matters are raised with me by constituents. I receive many inquiries from constituents in public housing in the ACT and I have previously had cause to pass on representations to the minister in this area. I do not think it is appropriate to identify constituents—that is not necessary for the purpose of the debate—or to go into the specific areas of public housing that these concerns related to. But I have sent information, whenever raised, to the minister and I do provide the minister with those details. In fairness, the minister has generally sought to remedy the problem.
In the budget it is reported that only 76 per cent of public housing tenants are satisfied with the provision of community housing. This is an increase on the government’s previous performance but we can also see diminishing improvements in this area. Most concerning, as I have already said, is the failure to properly utilise all available assets and the failure to have public housing tenants who breach the rules for social security contribute properly to their rental costs.
Without being in a position to access individual circumstances, and unless the minister can convince me that this has some measure of justice in it, with respect to people who breach their Centrelink arrangements, who fail to honour their obligations and who then, as a consequence, find themselves in difficulties, I do not think it is the role of the territory to start making it more attractive for them financially. I will never argue about people in trying and distressed circumstances being helped by the state but I also think that we have to draw a line in the sand.
Most people in public housing, from my observation, try to do the right thing but there is a percentage at the extreme end that really cause me concern. There are those who cause problems for their areas, their neighbourhoods. I receive a relentless stream of complaints about Manuka, particularly from businesses there, and about people from nearby public facilities causing all sorts of issues. I hear about concerns of a different nature in Kingston, with the facility there, and the problems in that area.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .