Page 2603 - Week 08 - Thursday, 30 June 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Pratt: I hate gardening!
MR HARGREAVES: Steve hates gardening, and in fact this man is the only man I know that refuses to eat his greens. He refuses to eat his greens because they come out of somebody’s garden. Mr Seselja puts forward the furphy, which is perpetuated by Mrs Burke thrashing around like a goldfish out of the bowl, that I promised $10 million. She says, “You rotten thing. You didn’t deliver; you broke your promise.” Funny about that because—and this is just an aside—I do not recall the Liberal Party actually promising $10 million. I do not remember hearing that so I wonder whether there is not a bit of hypocrisy floating in the air—maybe there is not.
Let me just read the exact words out of the policy platform that was published during the ACT election campaign with regard to the $10 million. No doubt our learned colleagues across the chamber can look up on the web to see whether I am telling the truth but if they want me to table it I will. It says:
Labor will expand the stock of public housing by accessing capital funds at a cost of $10 million a year for three years.
The last time I looked we were elected for four years. Where does it say that in here? It does not say that in here. You have got it wrong again, typical, absolutely typical. Where was your promise to do anything about housing? Absolutely nowhere. Where were you prior to us putting forward the affordable housing task force? You were nowhere to be seen—hiding under the lettuce that Mr Pratt so despises.
I have been attacked vehemently for saying that the private sector ought to carry its weight a bit more. Mrs Burke went to some pains to say there were these poor people out there with these rental properties for their superannuation. Those are not the people with whom I have issue. I have issue with people who have a number of properties, because there is no need, and I will tell you why. What is happening is that there are people out there saying, “I’ve got this house worth $450,000 and I’ve got to pay this mortgage of $500 a week on it therefore I need to have the rent at a certain level to pay the mortgage off because I’m saving the capital value for my super.” Now that sounds good at first pass but then we find out that they bought the property for $200,000 or $250,000 so they do not have a mortgage of that size. They have a mortgage of $250,000 and they charge $300 a week. Why do they do it? They do it because they can.
What I am saying—and I have said this publicly and I will say it again—is that the housing issue in the ACT is a community problem and we need a community solution. It is not up to the government solely to solve these things. They have to carry their weight as well and I will pursue them until they do carry their own weight. I think it was Mr Seselja who said that the argument about market renters does not hold a cup full of cold water, or words to that affect. When we work out how much we are charging for premises, say, in Yarralumla, we take the market level. But you say we are hypocritical in saying that we are charging that figure and that we are actually helping the market go up. But where are we in this? Let me tell you, Mr Seselja, that we have rebates—87 per cent of people in our housing stock are on rebates and the cost to the taxpayer of that rebate is driven by the actual market rent. So, if the market rent were less, there
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .