Page 2492 - Week 06 - Thursday, 23 June 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MR BARR: on the consumer, which makes a series of fairly heroic assumptions about the operation of that market at that point in time—
Mr Coe interjecting—
MR SPEAKER: Mr Coe, you have already been warned today.
MR BARR: and which fails to pay due regard to the other set of circumstances that are at play in this market. One could argue that there are a number of other policy settings that might go to the supply side, such as, for example, having different zones within the city that would allow redevelopment or not, that in fact would have a greater impact on the supply side than this particular provision.
Mr Seselja: Which suburb are you going to flood with units then?
MR BARR: With Mr Seselja, it is interesting that he at least is grasping the concept that Mrs Dunne fails to, but again, in his analysis, he wants the worst of all worlds to apply and then to combine contradictory statements to seek to make his case. Ultimately, it boils down to a narrow sectional interest ahead of the broader community interest, and that is—
Mr Seselja: Homebuyers?
Mrs Dunne: Homebuyers? A narrow sectional interest?
Mr Seselja: There it is. Homebuyers are a narrow, renters are a narrow, sectional interest.
MR BARR: No, the narrow sectional interest, Mr Speaker, are those who seek to crowd out homebuyers in order to make windfall gains in particular areas of the city—that is, rent seekers. And there is no greater friend of the rent seeker than the Canberra Liberals; no greater friend, it would appear, not just in this policy area but in almost every area.
It is funny; I am reminded of a phrase of a former Prime Minister who, when seeking to introduce a similar tax change, a goods and services tax, made the big call that in fact you needed to look beyond sectional interests. I think he used the phrase “you had to call it for Australia”. In this instance, there would appear to be two political parties in this place who are prepared to call it for Canberra and put the best interests of this city and the broader community ahead of the interests, and the narrow interests, of a small number in the property development sector.
That is what is at the heart of this debate. It is not a great surprise that the Canberra Liberals would be defending their daytime branch. There is no great surprise in that. What I suppose is disappointing is the lack of rigour in their analysis, the contradictory statements, the failure to acknowledge the current circumstances, particularly from Mrs Dunne in her contribution.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video