Page 1395 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 6 April 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
unit will revert to the market. What we are seeing here is a very temporary solution and a solution borne by the purchasers of units in a multiunit development.
For that reason and for other reasons I am sure that the Assembly has, we will not be supporting the bill. I also will signal the government’s intention not to support any attempt to refer this bill or the matter to any of the standing committees of this Assembly. We discussed this quite extensively in the 2004 debate. We have discussed it recently in this debate. It has been discussed in the public arena. I feel it is time now to hear the contribution from my opposition colleague, allow the Assembly to hear Dr Foskey’s concluding remarks and then vote on the issue. And if it is the will of the Assembly that we do not proceed, then that indeed should be the end of the matter.
MR SESELJA (Molonglo) (10.56): Mr Speaker, the opposition will be opposing this legislation. I note, as Mr Hargreaves has pointed out, that a very similar bill was put forward by Greens MLA, Kerrie Tucker, in the previous Assembly and it was roundly rejected. I expect that the same will occur in relation to this bill.
In relation to referral to a committee: we also would not support its being referred to a committee. As the minister points out, there has been ample discussion of this matter. I think it would be a waste of the committee’s resources to look into this again, especially given the overwhelming rejection last time by the Assembly and what I expect will be once again an overwhelming rejection.
Our reasons for not supporting this bill are quite simple. This, bill if enacted, would lead to higher unit prices, higher rents and, eventually, a loss of revenue flow to the ACT government. I would like to say at the outset that I think the goal of providing adequate housing for the poor is a very worthy one. The bill is, in our opinion, the wrong mechanism for achieving this goal.
One of the most important things that governments can do to contribute is keep home prices, particularly for first home buyers, low. Governments need to ensure adequate land supply and planning systems so that unnecessary delays are removed.
All members would be aware of the long housing boom of the last few years which has seen prices rise across the country, with Canberra now having amongst the highest median house prices in the country. It is also true that first home buyers often buy units as a way of entering the property market and breaking the rent cycle. There is little doubt that this bill would push prices up, with purchasers of units being forced to subsidise public housing, something which the entire community, through its government, is responsible for, something which Canberra residents already pay taxes for.
Let us look at an example to emphasise the point. The bill mandates that 4 per cent of units in major developments be set aside for public housing. If this bill were enacted, for a unit block containing 25 units costing an average of $300,000, the extra cost per unit would be $12,000. That is effectively a tax of $12,000 per unit.
Mr Hargreaves: Yes, spot on.
MR SESELJA: No, it is not on. This will therefore slug many first home buyers and many median income earners who are struggling to buy a unit. As Mr Hargreaves has
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .