Page 166 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 15 February 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
exempt properties if the cost is too unreasonable for the lessor. How will this unreasonableness be measured? It is putting far too much discretion in the hands of the minister.
Let us be very clear that this bill does not require owner-occupied properties to make any changes at all, so we are not looking at all properties in the ACT. This bill discriminates against those who want to buy a house. Under the terms of this bill it would be okay to buy a house that had not reached the minimum standards, but not okay to rent it out.
Let us look at the practicalities, something the Greens tend not to do overly well. There will no doubt be an impost on tenants when work is carried out, and some of this work could be quite extensive. We are talking in some cases of full bathroom refits, all despite the fact that the tenant might have been very happy with the property the way it was and the price of the property the way it was. In addition to that, potential investment buyers in the market will no doubt start avoiding the purchase of older properties on larger blocks, leaving a big gap in the rental property market for larger families and families with pets. There will also be more and more likelihood that tenants and lessors will enter into more informal rental agreements to avoid compliance with the legislation, therefore pushing the rental market underground.
This bill also has the potential to increase the workload of the already overburdened ACAT. Under the requirements of this bill, all rectification requirements can be referred to the commissioner and ultimately ACAT if they are disputed by either party.
When it comes down to it, what the Greens are doing now is what we have seen throughout their time in this Assembly, in past Assemblies, in other jurisdictions and in fact all over the world: they are trying to impose their world view on everybody. It is arrogance on the part of the green movement, of those on the crossbench, and sometimes those opposite, to have this world view that they are morally superior and they have to morally impose their values on everybody else. They struggle to comprehend that some people do not want to live the lifestyle that they are trying to impose on them. It is a very arrogant point of view and it is something that we on this side of the chamber will always fight against.
What we on this side of the chamber believe is that a government should be telling people what not to do, not telling people what to do. There is a big difference, a very big difference. We believe that people should be able to live their life as they wish, as long as it does not harm others. Instead, what the Greens are proposing here, and what Labor sometimes propose too, is a case of “it’s my way or the highway”. Instead of leaving a raft of options open to someone, they say, “You have to go down this path.” And that is something that we will always fight against. It is this restriction of freedom, this restriction on taxpayers to do with their money as they wish, which I think is quite unreasonable.
The changes that some lessors might have to make and which will incur significant costs, especially in older homes, would be things such as dual-flush toilets, maximum-flow showers, insulation—perhaps blockout curtains, draught and weather sealing—and many other things. If a property had to have each of these done, in addition to
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video