Page 2598 - Week 08 - Thursday, 30 June 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
He was saying it was the greedy landlords who, you know, are so terrible for owning a property and renting it out to someone. Not only is it class politics but also it is quite stupid economics. I mean, the idea there is that landlords can just charge whatever they want, people will pay it and there are no market forces. That was of course reinforced by his own official who said, “We base our market rent on what goes on in the market.” If the landlords are greedy—if that is the problem—and Mr Hargreaves bases his rental on what is being charged in the market; who is greedy? It is just a ridiculous argument. It smacks of stupid, old class politics and it makes no economic sense whatsoever. It was quite a ridiculous moment during the estimates period. I am sure Mr Hargreaves will get up and say something else but I would like to see him address that exact issue of market rent and what he said in that hearing.
I was not going to talk about Dr Foskey in particular but she seems to keep raising the issue that the Liberal Party is out to get her and all this sort of stuff. That is absolutely not true. There is absolutely no evidence of it.
Mr Hargreaves: Yes, it is.
MR SESELJA: There is absolutely no evidence of it.
Mr Hargreaves: Yes, it is.
MR SESELJA: Mr Speaker, if I could just be heard. We saw no discussion in the estimates process of Dr Foskey. We did see discussion about market renters, about full market renters and about the idea of security of tenure. These are legitimate policy debates to be having. No-one in the opposition asked about Dr Foskey. However, I feel the need just to address some of what Dr Foskey said. She said that she is subsidising other people. There is no taking into account the capital asset that someone like Dr Foskey is sitting on. We are talking about a place in Yarralumla. I do not know what that would be worth but, I would think, conservatively, it is $600,000 to $700,000. The idea that paying a couple of hundred dollars a week rent somehow fully compensates for that cost is just ludicrous. We still have thousands of people on the waiting list for public housing—people who, on a night like this, are probably sleeping rough. The suggestion that, because people are paying this idea of market rent, somehow it is making up for the asset they are sitting on, and that that justifies keeping people in genuine need on low incomes or no incomes out of public housing is mixed up economics. It is mixed up policy and there seems no logical justification for this claim.
Mr Hargreaves: Bit personal then—bit personal.
MR SESELJA: Mr Hargreaves says I am getting personal but Dr Foskey keeps saying, “the Liberal Party this”, “the Liberal Party that.” She is having a go at all of us, and Dr Foskey can stand on her own two feet and justify her position all she likes but I am not going to sit here and allow her to spout that we are against people in public housing. In fact, we actually support those people who are in genuine need of public housing. That is what we are about. It is not about people on a $100,000-plus salary living in public housing. This is the fundamental debate. If you had this debate out in the community, Mr Hargreaves, I guarantee you would lose. The public is not with you on this one. They are not with you. It is a ridiculous argument and what we are going see—
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .