Page 2597 - Week 08 - Thursday, 30 June 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
concern and the most glaring omission or biggest issue that came out of this was the $10 million per annum broken promise, which was admitted to by Mr Hargreaves—the minister who could not deliver. Mr Hargreaves, prior to the election, felt the need to promise the extra funds for housing, which was thought important by many people, and no doubt he was appealing to a particular audience. He now he says:
I considered that Housing ACT, with its rather superior business-like approach to providing accommodation to those who really need it, could exist on that $52 million. I didn’t particularly feel—and remember these are cabinet decisions so I’m part of a collective—like asking for $62½ million. If that meant I couldn’t going to happen.
That looks a bit odd but it is a direct quote from the transcript. I assume it is a misprint in the transcription.
No, it is not there; however, I can tell you that next year, as the Treasurer has indicated in the outyears, won’t be anywhere near as austere as this. The year after that won’t be even as austere as that one.
So, before the election, an extra $10 million was needed and now, because of the “superior business-like approach”, it is no longer needed. The minister said that he did not feel like asking for it—I am not quite sure why that is. Is that how he approaches the issue of public housing when he goes to cabinet—that he doesn’t feel like asking for it? I do not know why Mr Hargreaves “did not feel like asking for it.” He was obviously not concerned enough in cabinet to stick up for those people that he said he would stick up for. Perhaps he did not want to question the other wrong priorities of the government, such as the arboretum, instead of fighting for people who are going without housing.
It is interesting that Mr Hargreaves has so much confidence in the ability of his left faction cabinet colleagues to deliver on budget commitments, when we’ve highlighted the inability of his colleagues to contain themselves. Mr Hargreaves has also agreed with the opposition on the subject of election promises.
Mr Hargreaves: I have never agreed with you on anything about election promises.
MR SESELJA: Oh, you did! I put it to him that he might want to qualify all his election promises next time and say that it is subject to any changes of direction that we might have in budget deliberations next time. He agreed with that. I look forward at the next election to Mr Hargreaves and his cabinet colleagues qualifying all of their election commitments.
There was also discussion about full market renters, and it was interesting to see Mr Hargreaves’s response. I think Mr Hargreaves just said a moment ago to Dr Foskey that he was protecting her or defending her because he did attempt during the estimates process to defend her. When we asked him about market rents and why it is only $270 in Yarralumla when it seems that that is not what it would be in the open market, Mr Hargreaves said the reason was those “greedy” landlords. That was what he said—the “obscene” rents were due to “greedy” landlords. Mr Hargreaves was corrected by his officials who said it was because the quality of the houses being rented at that higher rate in the same area was higher, and that that was the difference. It smacked of class politics on the part of Mr Hargreaves. It really was disappointing.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .