Page 4484 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 14 October 2009

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .


of them are quite recalcitrant about it. Western Australia is particularly difficult, New South Wales is difficult and often Victoria is as well.

The second issue for us is that we have data definition difficulties. We do not share the same definition of the data, so making a comparison is particularly difficult. I know, for example—and I quoted this to Mr Coe just a moment ago and I will do it for the record—that the way in which we count the dollars spent per dwelling on our repairs and maintenance in multi-unit complexes is different from the way it is calculated in New South Wales and Victoria. In fact, an examination of the report on government services, known as the Productivity Commission report, will show quite different figures, and it makes each of the jurisdictions look quite strange at times.

Another problem for us in complying with part (2) of the Greens’ motion is that they want us to provide all of this detailed work within, we believe, an unreasonable time frame. It is not that we feel that their request is unreasonable; it is just that we do not think it is reasonable for us to be able, physically, to get the data in from those states, analyse it and put it together in a meaningful report for Assembly colleagues to consider. It would be a better use of our time to receive the KPMG report, unpick that and then bring it forward to the Assembly.

I undertake, on behalf of the government, that the moment the KPMG report is received by the ACT, we will bring it forward and table it at the first available opportunity in this Assembly. Of course, prior to that, we will give it to Ms Bresnan and Mr Coe for their consideration. I am quite pleased to be able to do that.

I know that Mr Coe has signalled a possible intention to proceed with an amendment asking us to provide this. Unfortunately, the KPMG report is not ours to do that with, and I have not received a copy of it yet. I have signalled with the federal Minister for Housing that, if this motion is amended in accordance with the government’s amendment, it will be used by this Assembly to judge the efficacy of the community housing sector and what the government is doing to enhance that particular sector.

We support the first part of the motion from the Greens. We seem lately, with the Greens and the Liberal Party, to be in more furious agreement than we are in disagreement. Perhaps these issues are really relatively minor, in fact, in our collective march towards making sure that those people who are marginalised economically and through other circumstances are not marginalised in the housing bit of their lives. I am very keen to make sure that does not occur. I ask the Greens to reconsider their lack of support for our amendment and seek the opposition’s support for that amendment.

I say also that it is with sincerity that I offer to bring the KPMG report to the chamber immediately that it is available. As I say, I have signalled it with the federal minister, so they are aware of it. It is the sort of information that we should be sharing because it does not do anybody any good for us to receive this sort of information, which is about how we are getting on in this sector, how we are enhancing it and whether it fits into the continuum of the housing sector, and not share it. I seek the Assembly’s support for my amendment.

MR COE (Ginninderra) (4.28): I rise to speak broadly in support of the sentiments of Ms Bresnan’s motion on community housing. It is an important motion because it


Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .