Page 2387 - Week 06 - Thursday, 23 June 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
We have had Ms Hunter demonstrate that she is arguing in a completely contradictory manner in the space of 10 seconds and we have got Ms Gallagher saying, “Actually we will.” What happens now, and what we are trying to fix, according to Katy Gallagher, is that people come in and they pay more. They pay more for these blocks. They pay more for these sites in the inner suburbs so that they can redevelop them than would be paid for someone who just wanted to live in them.
If I am the landowner in one of those areas, I might be inclined to take Ms Gallagher at her word. She seems to have now just endorsed the position that has been put out by industry in relation to inner suburbs—that there will be a reduction in land value for existing owners.
Ms Gallagher: No.
MR SESELJA: There is no other way to read that. There is no other way to read what Ms Gallagher said in her speech just then than that land values will be undermined. Two of the critiques have now been endorsed by the Treasurer. We have said that this will discourage redevelopment. She said, “Yes, because what is happening now should not be happening because people are coming in and they are paying more so they can redevelop.”
The other critique has been that in some areas we will actually see land values drop. That has been put out there publicly. The government said, “No; no evidence of that.” But Ms Gallagher just made the case for it. She just made the case for it because—
Ms Gallagher: It is not land value.
MR SESELJA: It is not land value. So the person who is sitting there in Turner and would have expected to get, say, $800,000 for their house and will now get $700,000 for their house—it is not land value; they have not lost $100,000. They are not $100,000 worse off. Again we see the internal contradictions.
What is important is that we have seen Ms Gallagher starting to finally, as we get to the detail stage, acknowledge things she has failed to acknowledge before. I can only imagine, if we were to debate all 25 of the Greens’ amendments separately, how many of the other critiques would be endorsed by the Labor Party and the Greens. It is important that we do that; I think we should debate them separately.
This amendment should be supported. This amendment is very important because it has highlighted Ms Gallagher’s endorsement of many of the critiques that have been made. She has endorsed two of the critiques. Yes, it will discourage infill development. Yes, it will affect the value of some properties. I look forward in the debate to Ms Gallagher endorsing the other aspect, which is that it is a dog’s breakfast of a piece of legislation and that it will be a tax on units, which hurts people looking to buy a unit and hurts people looking to rent a unit.
I commend the amendment to the Assembly.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video