Page 578 - Week 02 - Thursday, 21 February 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The Canberra Liberals do not believe that it is fair that a renter can make a modification to a property without at least informing the property owner. As was pointed out on ABC radio this morning, I cannot think of the name of the woman who was speaking on behalf of landlords, but she pointed out that there really are two types of landlords in this city. You have the people who have an investment property that they just wish to put in the market as a rental property, but you also have people in this city who, for whatever reason—people are posted overseas or for other reasons—are renting a property that they have either lived in and intend to live in again or that ultimately they wish to make their home. Many aspects of this bill impact so heavily on that latter path of so-called property investors.
The Canberra Liberals will not be supporting the Greens’ proposal to implement minimum standards in its current form. It is not because we disagree with the principle. That is not what it is about. It is progressive utopia stuff. We are concerned about the effect that it will have on the market. We can already see, even before the bill is passed, the effect that it will have on the market. We cannot support implementing a standard when we do not know what it looks like. The proposal does not include any transition period for these standards to be implemented, and it could be introduced at any time. We think it is very hazy. These proposals in their current form are unrealistic and will not be supported by the Canberra Liberals.
I stand here in support of tenants’ rights. The view of the Canberra Liberals is that the primary right of a tenant is to actually have a roof over their head. That is the first right. When we are at rental vacancy of diddly squat, it is not the time to be making those changes.
MR PETTERSSON (Yerrabi) (11.33): I just had a wonderful time listening to Mr Parton’s speech. There were several things I want to comment on in what he said. Mr Parton outlined that he did indeed want a dog when he rented, and his justification as to why he could not get a dog was that the rules said he could not. Mr Parton, as a politician, should know that opinions count in this place. The question I have for Mr Parton is whether he should be able to have a dog. He says he wants a dog but, for some strange reason, something does not connect. He does not think he can change the rules on whether he could have a dog. Believe it or not, Mr Parton, those in this place have the power to change those rules. We can allow people to have dogs in their rental properties.
I also want to question some of their claims about renters in the Liberal Party. By some chance, does one of those renters also own an investment property? It is a bit rough to lump them in with the renters that are struggling to get by. The key point Mr Parton made was not that he necessarily thought these changes were bad. He went to great lengths to say, “These ideas are actually not too bad, but now is the wrong time. Surely there’s a better time, not now.”
But we need to talk about the rental crisis that is going on in this country right now—from 40 years ago to now. Forty years ago, 60 per cent of young people earning the lowest incomes owned a home. Right now, it is only 20 per cent of young people on the lowest incomes. There is a generation of permanent renters being created in this
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video