Page 2517 - Week 08 - Thursday, 30 August 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Hargreaves: That is news to me.
MRS BURKE: Maybe you do not know about it. Maybe you could look into that, minister.
Overall, this budget seems to be pretty much steady as she goes within the housing portfolio. And it seems to be even more steady than she goes from a minister who is really not on top of this portfolio. (Second speaking period taken.) This budget tries to plug a couple of holes but fails to tackle the real issues within the public housing portfolio and lacks imagination and vision.
DR FOSKEY (Molonglo) (9.48): I have had some very good feedback on Housing ACT’s management of the Narrabundah Long Stay Caravan Park. I know that there are very complex issues that are yet to be addressed on the permanent approach to leasing and/or licences once the title reverts to the territory, and I trust that JACS is committed to developing an appropriate framework for the long-term solution to those issues. But I would like to thank the ACT government and Housing ACT for their work to lessen the trauma for those 200-plus people in a very difficult situation.
I note that the budgeted outcomes for last year are the same as those for this year but that the actual outcomes for last year are a lot lower. So the percentage of routine vacancies and the percentage of tenants in arrears who are on agreements to manage those debts, for example, were lower than expected.
I am a little bit suspicious of the expectations of agency performance in this budget. The biggest problem I have with Housing ACT’s strategy is the wider constraints in which it must work, although there have been some unfortunate decisions made at the next level down which to my mind have been unnecessary and destructive. For example, I am concerned about the impact of the new regulations on older people, particularly women, and people living with disability—the new regulations to move people on to homes that ACT Housing considers are more closely aligned to their entitlement.
Mr Hargreaves: What regulations?
DR FOSKEY: I am talking about the change to the term “security of tenure”. There are important natural supports within communities for older people who may have lost their partner and whose children have moved on. Summing up, there is going to be a great deal of difficulty in working out whether someone who has lived in a house for 50 years, brought up a family there and now has a couple of spare bedrooms is in a house over-entitlement. But that is where the current conversation is leading.
It is widely acknowledged that the longer we can remain in our homes and our neighbourhoods as we age, the better the quality of that stage of our lives. And if it is better for us—better for the person—it is better in health outcomes and cheaper for the community. If social services can be coordinated to support us in our homes, then the cost to the community is significantly less.
There is a similar situation with people who are living with a disability in their homes or have to move. Informal networks of support can keep the happiness and wellbeing
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .