Page 887 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 20 March 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
how we are moving forward in this space, and to some extent we have to trust, but I do not know how great that trust is.
The motion calls on the government to investigate changes to planning rules to improve apartment design and solar access and ventilation. These seem like sensible suggestions. I understand they are already being investigated, as has been explained, with revised design guidelines being developed as we speak.
Earlier in the week I gave an indication to Ms Le Couteur that we on this side would be most likely to just let this motion go through unopposed. But there is a problem that arises often in this place in regard to private members’ motions. They are not bills; they are motions. They do not get the same scrutiny as bills, and nor should they. But, as a consequence, we often first sight rather complex motions at some stage on a Monday afternoon and we are expected to form a position on those motions sometimes within half an hour of them hitting our table and certainly by the following morning, before debating them on the Wednesday.
On my first read of Ms Le Couteur’s motion, my gut feeling was that we could probably let it go through. But, upon further investigation, including engaging with industry bodies, individual builders, apartment owners, staff from Mr Ramsay’s office and further with staff from Ms Le Couteur’s office, we formed a different view. In making this statement, I am effectively apologising to Ms Le Couteur for appearing to change position halfway through our negotiations on this. On the face of it, Ms Le Couteur’s motion appears to have a relatively sound basis, but it did not take a great deal of digging to discover that, in my opinion, this is perhaps the wrong way to go about addressing this problem.
It must also be said that I still harbour a suspicion that the biggest role that this motion is playing for the Greens is to signal to Greens supporters, and specifically to renters, that the Greens are looking after them. On so many fronts they are not really. I commend Mr Joel Dignam for putting together this motion. Hang on; did I say Mr Dignam? I meant Ms Le Couteur. I do not know where “Joel Dignam” came from; we know that the renters advocacy group Better Renting has nothing to do with the Greens. We know that. They have assured us that there is no transfer of data and they are certainly not a front for the Greens. I dare say they will not even cover this debate on their various pages. I do not think they will. Hang on; they have posted about it. They have posted about it, but I am sure that they will not want to play a role in this.
I digress. I just wanted to say that if you really want to do something for renters’ rights, I would suggest that you do something to open up the rental market. If you want to do something for renters’ rights, put away this absurd phobia about market-driven solutions, recognise that investors are a major part of the solution, and do something that will encourage more investors into this market rather than driving them away.
In regard to specific parts of this motion, I might just go through a couple of issues. The original motion from Ms Le Couteur said that, while the current EER system is helpful, it is clearly inadequate to ensure that new apartments are livable and safe during heatwaves. I do not know if that is really what the EER is supposed to do at its
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video