Page 168 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 23 February 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR STEVENSON: It is excellent. It may be politically unacceptable to mention that people take better care of property when they own it, but it happens to be true. We have a situation where Dr Hewson - - -
Ms Follett: John Hewson tried that line without a lot of success.
MR STEVENSON: Exactly. Would you decry the fact that what he stated was true? The truth of the matter is that, in many cases you can tell public housing. In Victoria and in New South Wales, where I worked on the road, again and again we could pick properties that were public housing. It may not be politically acceptable to make the statement, but it happens to be true, and it can very easily be proven. If someone was prepared to bet me enough money that I could not do it, I would be happy to show you. Make it worth my while. I will donate it to public housing. That is the truth of the matter when people have ownership of anything. Look at politicians with the people's money. If it was their own money they would not waste it as they do.
It is the principle that was mentioned by Davy Crockett, Senator Crockett. There was a move to spend public money on a particular good deed, and Crockett stood up and talked about the principle. He said that to take public money and to give it to a good cause is not okay. He said, "But I will donate money to this particular cause, and I recommend that other members do so as well". Did they? No, they did not, which proves the point, or certainly makes a strong point, that they are perfectly prepared to spend other people's money but not their own. It is a good principle to look at.
The situation we have here is that people who have a difficulty with housing need some help and encouragement. Mr Lamont said, "Why do they not go and buy another $300,000 house down the road?". The reason is that they cannot, usually, and there are a number of reasons why they cannot; but they should not have to. They do not want to. Let us look at some of them.
Mr Connolly: They can usually afford a lower cost house.
MR STEVENSON: Exactly.
Mr Connolly: So who is bankrolling them to buy the house in Reid? The developer.
MR STEVENSON: Wait. One reason is that when buying a new place they do not have an allowance for the work that they have done on the existing place they are renting, and we agree with that principle. You are right, Mr Connolly. It is a good point. If a person has improved the property there should be an allowance if they wish to buy it. But they cannot do that if Mr Lamont's suggestion is followed: "Why do they not buy the place down the road?". There would be no allowance.
The next point is that when you have to move there are all sorts of costs involved. Not the least of all is the cost in time of doing it. Why should they have to do that? The next thing is that they have to leave their home if they buy another place. They may have been there for a number of years. Why should they be driven out of their home? Why should we not encourage them, as this Bill does,
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .