Page 3371 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 19 August 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Assembly are isolated as the only people in the Canberra community who want this sort of outdated model of public housing to remain.
We know what the Greens think about this, but what about the left of the Labor party? What about Mr Corbell? What about Ms Gallagher? Where are all the socialists on this issue? The socialists are good at telling everyone else what to do as long as they do not have to do it themselves. They have no problems with spending money on addressing social issues as long as it is not their own issue. They cling to the outdated ideal of high-density public housing as long as they do not have to live in it. I can tell the Assembly now that if those on the crossbench lived in this sort of housing I reckon they would have a few issues with it too.
There are better solutions. The phasing out of high-density public complexes and providing a better framework for community housing providers to assist in meeting the social housing needs of the territory offer a way forward. The health and wellbeing of tenants and community standards must be at the centre of all our future decisions regarding the relocation of and new accommodation for public housing tenants.
I have said in this place before, and I will not hesitate to reiterate, that community housing providers are often better placed to meet tenants’ individual and complex needs and house them appropriately in a timely and sensitive manner. Havelock Housing ACT, a nationally accredited community housing provider in the ACT, spends more on maintenance per dwelling than Housing ACT, yet Housing ACT overheads outstrip Havelock Housing by a significant amount.
The Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute revealed in June 2008 that Havelock spent $3,237 on maintenance per dwelling compared with $2,509 per dwelling for Housing ACT. It also revealed that in terms of net average total overheads—that is, salaries and administration—Havelock spends $1,791, which is well below the Housing ACT level of $3,356 per dwelling.
Housing ACT is a top-heavy bureaucracy that is too laden down in process and therefore is not responsive enough to the needs of public housing tenants in the Canberra community. It has taken Housing ACT and the government far too long to deal with the issue of high-density public housing. Action must be taken to move towards more appropriate social housing in the ACT. New housing developments should contain a mixture of options, not try to recreate the failure of these high-density complexes.
The opposition looks forward to debating social housing in the Assembly—and to some serious debate, including on the proper role of Housing ACT and community housing providers. We also look forward to serious debate on the challenges facing social housing in the ACT, especially on the serious issue of antisocial behaviour.
The Greens should not seek to trivialise the housing debate by dressing up a debate on environmental building standards as a serious contribution to debate on social housing. As I indicated at the beginning of my speech, the opposition will vote against this motion. It is the wrong direction for social housing in the ACT.
Debate (on motion by Ms Hunter) adjourned to the next sitting.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .