Page 165 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 23 February 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
a Housing Trust home for five years, if they have established a connection with that place and demonstrate a desire to buy it at a fair market price, as indicated in the Bill, they should have that right. Nothing is changed in the Government's housing policy by that happening. I believe, Madam Speaker, that we, as an Assembly, should be supporting the right to home ownership in those circumstances. Nothing that has been said about this Bill would make me think for a moment that it should not be supported, and I would hope that members of the Assembly would reconsider their position.
MR LAMONT (12.07): Madam Speaker, what one must do when looking at this Bill presented by Mr Cornwell is to take into account the history of the Opposition, indeed of Mr Cornwell, in statements made in this house and made in public about their view of public housing. You have to understand what that view is as far as the intent of this Bill is concerned. I suppose that is what this debate is all about. The intent of this Bill on the one hand could be seen to be a mere reflection of Mrs Carnell's leadership - jumping onto fairly populist issues whenever she can. There is this view expressed from the other side that every Housing Trust tenant wants to be able to buy their house.
Mr Cornwell: This was introduced before Mrs Carnell became leader.
MR LAMONT: Mr Cornwell is probably the only one on the other side who was able to predetermine that there would be a leadership challenge and that Mrs Carnell would finally get up, so I suppose he is to be congratulated for that. It would be interesting to see where his vote went on the day. Mr Kaine can probably tell us that, but obviously he will not.
The intent of this Bill, Madam Speaker, is fairly clear. It is an attempt, by one means or another, to wind down what would be the most desirable of the Housing Trust housing stock. It is quite obvious, in terms of where the ACT Housing Trust has strategically placed itself with its housing stock, that to allow that - - -
Mr Cornwell: What!
MR LAMONT: It has done so in terms of the positioning of that stock in inner urban areas, particularly the inner north and inner south. What would happen as a result of this? Mr Cornwell, obviously supported by Mr Humphries, is saying that a Housing Trust tenant in Reid could pay the Housing Trust $300,000, let us say, for a house that they may have been occupying for some time and then tomorrow morning the Housing Trust could go out and buy another house in Reid for $300,000.
Mr Humphries: It probably could.
MR LAMONT: I ask you the question, then, "Why does not the Housing Trust tenant go and buy the other house?".
Mr Humphries: Because he does not live in that other house. He has lived in this house. He wants this house.
MR LAMONT: It is in exactly the same place. It is next-door, across the street, or around the corner. It is just not a reasonable argument, because the extra cost that you are then placing on the Housing Trust to go through that process is a further drain on the resources of the Housing Trust. That is simply it.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .