Page 577 - Week 02 - Thursday, 21 February 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I know that Mr Pettersson seems to think that if all rental properties were sold tomorrow it would be good for renters like himself. Of course, all renters are not in the same financial position that Mr Pettersson finds himself in. In case you missed Mr Pettersson’s performance on ABC radio earlier in the week, in his bleatings seeking the Xbox vote, he was asked about the consequences of investors departing the market in great numbers. Mr Pettersson said, “That’d be great. It’d be a wonderful result for renters because they would be able to afford to buy their own property.” The reality is that 75 per cent of the market are owner-occupiers. Investors are not distorting the market. It was an absurd suggestion for Mr Pettersson to make.
For many renters it is not just about being able to find a property available to purchase; it is that they are not in a position to purchase a house. Unlike Mr Pettersson, those of us on this side of the chamber understand that the relationship between property owners and renters is symbiotic. Renters need property owners, just as property owners need renters.
It is with this understanding that the Canberra Liberals will oppose this bill. The Canberra Liberals understand that there needs to be a delicate balance between the rights of property owners and the rights of renters. But the policy agenda of the Labor-Greens government has been to create an environment that pushes property owners out of the market. In a market that is already squeezed for competition, that boasts the highest rents in the country, we cannot support a bill that will force more property owners out of the market and further squeeze the market.
Last week, while I was out in the suburbs of Brindabella, I spoke to a number of property owners who said that they were watching this debate with great interest. They told me that reducing yields and this debate have pretty much inspired them to list their properties, and they have done so in the last two weeks. That was said by two investors. One of them had two properties and one had another property. Of course, that means that even before this bill has been passed, renters in the ACT have been forced out of their homes and back into the huge queue of people looking for rental properties in Canberra. The anecdotal evidence that I am getting from those in the industry is that 75 per cent of those properties are being purchased by owner-occupiers; they are not going back onto the rental round.
I am genuinely concerned about the consequences of this bill. This bill will absolutely guarantee that Canberra continues to lead the nation as the highest rental city in Australia. Please, mark my words on that. This bill, which was supposed to make life easier for renters, will do the exact opposite.
With respect to the amendments that I understand will be moved by the Greens, while the Canberra Liberals believe that property owners should retain the right to decide whether animals reside in their property or not, we do believe that it is extremely reasonable that this is advertised by property owners. We are certainly on the same page as Ms Le Couteur in that sense, and, when we get to that, we will be supporting that amendment. With the other amendments proposed by the Greens, some of them will not gain support. I am in discussion with the attorney on a few of those.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video