Page 5503 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 17 November 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
come third in our motto. Perhaps we should change that. The motion simply asks that the government carefully consider the cost of living and look at initiatives to bring it down and provide the Assembly with a cost of living statement in the budget. What is wrong with that? There is nothing wrong with that and there is no argument that has been made, that I have heard yet, that says that it should not be done.
If this was a motion saying, “Let’s have a statement of the environment in the budget,” the Greens would be in there like a rat down a drainpipe. But when you come to holding a Labor government to account, do not expect a Greens party to do that. And that is a shame. The argument seems to be, “Well, so much of this is out of our control.” I notice that Mr Stanhope’s amendment, at subparagraph (d), says: “Median house prices are determined by the private market.” So, not responsible. He ends up being the Kylie Minogue of ACT politics. He is not responsible for anything. And the rest of the argument is, “Well, we’re not quite as bad as New South Wales.” Who would want to be compared to New South Wales in the first place?
The question is: what drives house prices? Median house prices are determined by the private market. So you have to ask the question: why, in fact, do the government have a housing affordability strategy? You can question whether or not it is working—because they can influence these things. So it is preposterous to say that these are all determined by the private market.
It is interesting to look at some of the recent housing affordability reports. The Urban Design Institute of Australia said that, for the ACT, the two things that destroyed housing affordability in the ACT were land release and fees and charges, both of which—and I note the silence from those opposite—are under the direct control of the government and one of which is under the direct control of the Chief Minister. Land release and fees and charges: these are things that governments control. To say that the government has no control over things like the cost of water, the cost of electricity, the cost of rates and rents and public transport, is just preposterous.
“Electricity and water prices are set by the Independent Competition and Regulatory Commission.” Yes, they are. But what are the inputs that they discuss when they make those decisions? Mrs Dunne said it so well. In 2004, we said we needed a new dam. The great denier over there said: “No, never. We don’t want it. We don’t need one. It’ll be 20 or 30 years away.” And here we are, building a dam whose cost has gone from about $145 million up to about $360 million. That is the position of the Chief Minister: deny it until it is so obvious that you then try and accept it and make it your own.
We can go through the government’s amendment. “Rates.” The government determines rates. The government directly determines the rates. “Rents are determined by the private market.” Well, that is true. But what are the factors that contribute to that determination? Government fees and charges, government taxes, government planning, a change of use charge. It just goes on and on. The government determines these things. To ameliorate the whole motion by simply saying, “We’re not as bad as elsewhere,” just shows the genuine lack of concern from both the government and the Greens—the great champion of the underdog, who do not want to hold a government to account and who do not want to acknowledge that this is an issue with people.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video