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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 14 Hansard (10 December) . . Page.. 4865 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

There are also, as Mr Moore and, indeed, the Chief Minister have mentioned, the factors affecting investors in the ACT. Most people in the ACT who invest in property are not big investors; they are not people who own 30, 40, 50 properties; many of them are superannuants; many of them are people whose one housing investment property is effectively their superannuation. They often have very low incomes themselves. I have received a number of letters from them about matters such as tenants who are not paying rent. That causes real problems because, in many instances, their one investment property has a mortgage. I am very concerned, and would be interested in what members supporting these Bills say, about the costs that these people will incur and how they are to be ameliorated. I think the costs do need to be. That is a very significant factor. When an older property is to be sold there may well also be an impact, especially now when there is not a huge demand perhaps for houses. If someone has to sell because they are moving in their job and they live in an older house which does not have a very high energy rating, it might be very difficult for that property to sell. Indeed, if work has to be done before the property can be sold, it might run into tens of thousands of dollars. There are a number of quite serious factors, I think, which do need to be looked at and to be worked through before these Bills can apply right across the board to all properties in Canberra.

I am also concerned that the Greens, in introducing the Bills - and whilst I appreciate they were in gestation with the Parliamentary Counsel for some time - do not appear to have consulted the Housing Industry Association. They spoke to me this morning and indicated that they were only aware of the Bills - - -

Ms Tucker: We have. I am sorry; we talked with the Housing Industry Association a year ago.

MR STEFANIAK: Well, you had better talk to Martin Walsh about that because, Ms Tucker, he indicated to me that he was really only aware of what was proposed when the Bills hit the table last week. That is not a very long period of time for consultation. There are a number of amendments which have been brought forward as a result of these Bills, and I think that indicates, perhaps, that there are certain things that do need to be thought out better. Perhaps some further consultation with relevant players such as the Housing Industry Association would not go astray.

MS TUCKER (4.58), in reply: I will quickly respond to Mr Stefaniak's last statement. This was announced in the Canberra Times over a year ago. We did talk with the Housing Industry Association then. It is not correct to say that we have not discussed it with industry. Obviously, we have had the Bill only recently; and if that is what Mr Stefaniak is saying, yes, I will acknowledge that there has not been a long time to look at the detail of the Bill. That is unfortunate. As a result of the continuing pressure on parliamentary drafters we had to wait over a year to get this out.

I would also want to make a couple of comments about the Scrutiny of Bills Committee's comments. They raised two definitional concerns, although both were about the inappropriate delegation of legislative power. The first was in relation to the concept of the energy efficiency rating system. As members are aware, the statement is consistent

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