Page 166 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 23 February 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Kaine: Your proposition that he should go and live somewhere else is not a logical argument, mate.
MR LAMONT: It is not illogical at all. The simple fact is that the Housing Trust stock is provided on a particular regime, quite clearly supported by this Government, and also by the Independents in terms of their submissions to this house over the last two years. The basis upon which we provide the Housing Trust is an appropriate way to go. The Liberals are saying, "We do not care what costs the Housing Trust is put to in order to facilitate this process". There is a cost to the Housing Trust in disposing of stock, on the one hand, only to reacquire it on the next day, which is basically what they are proposing - housing stock in exactly the same area, if it is available. So what do you do?
Have a look at, say, a Housing Trust house in Reid. Again I use the example of Reid. I think it is a very good example. It was given to me by Mr Moore. Say you purchase a Housing Trust property for $200,000. What happens then is that the Housing Trust goes around trying to find another property, let us say in Reid. What is the price going to be? Is the price going to be the $200,000? The simple answer is no. What are we going to have? We are going to have the friend of the women's refuge, Mr Cornwell, stand up when the Housing Trust pays $350,000 or $400,000 for a refurbished house in Reid and be absolutely outraged about it. The sheer hypocrisy of the type of argument that Mr Cornwell has put up, unably supported by Mr Humphries, is testimony to their lack of understanding of the way the property market works in the ACT, their lack of commitment to true social justice as far as having affordable public housing in reasonable proximity to the city - - -
Mr Kaine: Since when did you become a property expert, Mr Lamont?
MR LAMONT: Mr Kaine, put it this way: I am not the one who has been removed from the Planning Committee. I will say no more about that issue. You do not even have the support of your own party as far as planning is concerned. Don't you stand up here and throw nasturtiums across the chamber.
Members interjected.
MADAM SPEAKER: Order! Mr Lamont, do not get distracted.
MR LAMONT: Thank you, Madam Speaker; it is so easy. The premise of this Bill, I believe, is flawed. It is flawed in logic and it is flawed in so far as its commitment to social justice is concerned. This Government has a record which is enviable as an administration in this Territory. It also has an enviable reputation around Australia for its commitment to social justice as far as our policies on providing Housing Trust properties are concerned.
To say that we should dispose of that essential housing stock in a very short period, five years - that is a very short period - is simply wrong. It is also interesting to note that the older Housing Trust stock is in the inner south and the inner north. That principally would be the area that this Bill would affect. Given the nature of our commitment to the social justice issues of public housing, it is fundamentally wrong to accept the premise of this Bill. It is wrong as far as proper social justice or good social justice is concerned, it is wrong in an economic sense, and it would be something about which Mr Cornwell would be on the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .