Page 1404 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 6 April 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
a statement of fact; it is true. That means it is a concern; that means we have to do something about it. Mr Corbell also stated, like every other person who has spoken, that there are flaws in our approach that work against the benefits. Many people have stated, again, that costs are simply passed on, and I have already addressed that.
There are flaws in our approach—absolutely. That is why we wanted it to go to a committee. We are not the experts here. I am sure many of you are, but I do not pretend to be an expert on this one. The planning and environment committee has the ability to call on expert advice, and that is why we wanted to go there. By the way, I foreshadow that I am no longer going to move the motion that it go to a committee, because no-one wants to be defeated twice in five minutes!
There is the increased complexity of regulations when we are planning to simplify it. I often wonder who benefits from proposed simplifications. We have to be very careful that we are not pandering to a certain rowdy part of the housing industry here and actually hurting those who do not have voices and who can never ever aim to own a house. I think that, on the whole, Mr Corbell just repeated points made by Mr Hargreaves and I have addressed most of those.
Mrs Burke—consultation. We need to be quicker. All I have here is a question mark. Excuse me: I am not quite sure what you mean. This is a revision of the earlier bill and I know that my staff consulted very broadly with other offices. Of course, you have all discussed this before and you knew it was coming up.
Mrs Burke also said that we have more government housing than anywhere else in Australia. Okay, but that does not mean we do not have a problem. We still have a problem of not enough housing. The waiting lists in other states are even longer than they are here, but that is not something to be proud of.
Mrs Burke: Did I say I was proud? I don’t think so.
Dr Foskey: Good. The Greens are off the mark because we should be more concerned about asset protection. We are concerned about asset protection. We certainly do not want the public housing estate to shrink. We are looking at means to help it grow. Now, Mr Seselja.
Mr Seselja: It’s my turn; I have five minutes!
MR SPEAKER: Order! Dr Foskey has the floor.
Dr Foskey: On this one we heard similar arguments to those raised by Labor members. I think a lot of the assertions made today by Mr Seselja and others really need to be explored—for instance the flat statement, “We will see higher unit prices and rents, and a decreased revenue flow to the ACT government.” How do we know these things could happen? Are there measures that could be put in place to make sure they do not happen?
Mr Seselja, there is also little doubt that this bill would push prices up but, again, I need to know more about that. I need the evidence; I need the investigation. If we are
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .