Page 4337 - Week 13 - Thursday, 4 December 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
As has been articulated in this place, at the moment home owners are in essence being forced off their land. As I said in the in-principle debate, they are being told, “This is the scheme; sign up or we’re going to come and we’re going to compulsorily acquire your land, and you will be massively out of pocket.” If home owners sign up under that threat, when they come back to try and buy their land, because of the uplift that is being applied—the unit titling and the subdivision—they will not be able to afford to buy back their land.
We have heard speeches today from members in this place about the importance of members’ connections to their community—what a home is and what that means. Certainly this side of the chamber understands what a home is to people. It is not simply a tax haven—which we have heard from those opposite before—it is not just a financial asset. Your home means more than that. I see Mr Rattenbury shaking his head, but ultimately that is the effect of the government’s scheme as it stands.
There is a cost to that and we have accepted that but, as I have said, it is within the margin of error of this entire scheme, and what we are saying is supported by the committee. I refer members to recommendations 19, 20 and 21 that make this clear. I do not intend to relitigate all of those arguments. But I am disappointed to see that the government in their response to the committee report are not accepting those recommendations. That is very disappointing.
Government is about priorities. Leadership is about priorities; it is about choices. As Mr Coe said, what is happening today is that the thousand or more Mr Fluffy home owners are going to be put behind six months of light rail costs. Six months of light rail costs are more important to Mr Rattenbury, Mr Barr and Ms Gallagher than providing fairness for over a thousand Mr Fluffy home owners. That is what is happening in this Assembly today. I say: shame on you. Don’t you ever—through you, Mr Assistant Speaker—come into this place again and talk about fairness and talk about compassion, because what you are doing today is putting your priorities, particularly those of light rail, ahead of fairness and of compassion.
I note there will be an amendment to my amendment moved by the Chief Minister in an attempt to essentially water down what we are saying today. But let me make a couple of things very clear: whichever way the amendment is eventually voted on by this place, it will not change the fact that this government is not changing the scheme to allow fairness. The amendment to my amendment will insert the element “as far as is possible and reasonable”. The problem when you talk about fairness is that you are either fair or you are unfair. There is no middle ground—it is either fair to the home owners or it is unfair to the home owners.
What Katy Gallagher is trying to do is insert some weasel words so that we have a semi-fair or a not quite unfair situation—it is a halfway house. That is not possible. This government needs to be fair or accept that it is being unfair. That is what is happening today. This government is going to vote on an amendment and it has provided a response to the committee report saying it will implement a scheme that is unfair. Shame on you.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video