Page 2488 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 1 August 2018
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
shared stakeholder consultation on this motion in that my office consulted with the Real Estate Institute. It is my understanding that Ms Le Couteur’s office did not, and we invited Ms Le Couteur to attend that consultation but unfortunately she was busy with some other things.
When the story of this motion appeared in the media I received calls and messages from a number of people who were well aware of our plans and they wanted to know why the Greens had stolen our motion. I assured them that this was not the case; it was just a case of great minds think alike.
One of the things you can be certain of in the realm of Australian politics is that if a Liberal member and a Greens member come to the chamber with exactly the same motion, you can be pretty sure that it is a pretty good idea. Additionally, if a union chief then comes out and says this is a regressive neo-liberal trickle-down proposal from the ACT Greens you can just say this is a damn fine idea.
I flippantly referred to myself and Ms Le Couteur as great minds. The reality here, as she has explained, is that the idea did not come from us; it has come from people in the affordable housing sector. It is not new; there have been all sorts of submissions and all sorts of talk. There was a submission from the YWCA at a recent committee hearing. It is something that my friend Travis Gilbert at ACT Shelter has been spruiking. It is a hobby horse of Andrew Hannan from CHC, and I thank Andrew for all of his assistance with the preparation of our motion which has been superseded by this one.
I am disappointed that my amendments are going to be superseded and that we are not going to get to them. I am disappointed that they cannot be implemented. As I said earlier, Ms Le Couteur did not need Labor if she really wanted to make a difference in this space, and she knows it. She knows a genuine crossbench needs to find a backbone and find some independence to get things done. Our amendments would have strengthened this motion and got it done.
I do not care who gets a political win out of this. I do not care about the optics; all I care about is delivering good policy, easing the burden on the traffic jam which is ACT Housing, and allowing a number of individuals and families to live their lives without the panic of how they are going to pay the bills. It is of no consequence to me that this is a Greens motion. Throughout the process we were genuinely focused on just getting something done.
Ms Le Couteur’s amendment to Ms Berry’s proposed amendment agreed to.
Ms Berry’s amendment, as amended, agreed to.
MS LAWDER (Brindabella) (11.03): I rise to reiterate some of the comments that have been made today and very much agree with them. The community housing sector and a number of organisations have advocated for years for the types of measures proposed in Ms Le Couteur’s original motion. Most recently, for example, we heard from the YWCA on the community day of estimates hearings where they talked about this type of occurrence as well.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video