I have written about this before - most punters don’t care too much for politics unless the conflict is captivating, or parliament is debating an issue that resonates personally or with the community.
No confidence motions, warring politicians, rogue back-benchers or a rogue speaker make for interesting reading, tweeting and watching, but they rarely lead to positive outcomes.
This is not to gloss over important issues being raised, given more prominence, immediate fixes being considered and reported on the front page of newspapers as a result, rather, under the Westminster system of government, the decision-makers (cabinet) provide the leadership required to improve situations for individuals and the community as a whole.
The trouble with going rogue is that cabinet may move to appease instead of remaining committed to solving long-term problems. That being the case, the issue will never be fully addressed; with a short-term ‘throw money at the problem’ fix the most likely result.
The most difficult challenge for a minister is to say nothing: to hold the line or offer that a decision is yet to be made or legislation not ready to be tabled. However, to resolve issues – this challenge must be met with moral strength and a commitment to getting it right.
An example is Tasmania’s housing crisis. The solution is adding diversity to the market. Tasmania’s economy is a victim of its own success with positive population growth, ignited by tourism, leading to a housing supply shortage.
Further, figures released by the ANZ last week suggested that Hobart was the least affordable rental market in Australia at 35.8 per cent of income required to service a mortgage and 32.5 per cent required to pay rent (Launceston more affordable to buy than rent – 28.4 per cent to 29.7 per cent).
Without increased and diverse supply, this is clearly unsustainable leading to a growing category of Tasmanians - the working poor.
It is impossible to fathom a scenario where the minister and other members of cabinet were caught unaware to the extent of the housing problem, particularly having just sat through estimates where they should know more than anyone else in the room.
The fact that $43 million was committed for affordable housing in the state budget suggests awareness, but the problem remains that we probably need $143 million.
Unfortunately, because the fundamental issue of supply and keeping up with demand has not been addressed, we are left proposing solutions that may sound like a good idea but will not satisfy the community nor those left without a roof over their head.
There has been a market failure leaving people homeless and those from different walks of life unable to find a rental or even consider squirreling away the deposit for a home.
The supply shortage is due to developments taking up to 24 months to begin when we needed them started yesterday.
And it’s not the councillors failing to make decisions in the mandatory 42 days, it’s the raft of additional council approvals and coordination of agency and infrastructure providers that engages the supply handbrake.
The House of Assembly is the people’s house – questions must be asked, ministers must think clearly on their feet to answer concisely and honestly, and solutions devised as a result of careful interrogation.
Opposition parties should hold the government to account in a relentless and vigorous manner, but for a fundamental issue like housing they must also be part of the solution.
What many people don’t understand is that, aside from question time, parliament is convivial; friendships are formed across the chamber and most legislation is passed without fuss following constructive briefings and sharing of information.
And that’s what I find so difficult to reconcile - parliament appears unable to work together to provide additional housing for the most needy and vulnerable in our community through hastening supply. If that be the case, I’m not sure of any issue that will lead to collaboration.
It’s time for those who can make a difference to unite under one roof. And that must be through the leadership of the state government with the support of the parliament. Because punters know, bringing a brick into the House will not build one.
No confidence motions, warring politicians, rogue back-benchers or a rogue speaker make for interesting reading, tweeting and watching, but they rarely lead to positive outcomes.
This is not to gloss over important issues being raised, given more prominence, immediate fixes being considered and reported on the front page of newspapers as a result, rather, under the Westminster system of government, the decision-makers (cabinet) provide the leadership required to improve situations for individuals and the community as a whole.
The trouble with going rogue is that cabinet may move to appease instead of remaining committed to solving long-term problems. That being the case, the issue will never be fully addressed; with a short-term ‘throw money at the problem’ fix the most likely result.
The most difficult challenge for a minister is to say nothing: to hold the line or offer that a decision is yet to be made or legislation not ready to be tabled. However, to resolve issues – this challenge must be met with moral strength and a commitment to getting it right.
An example is Tasmania’s housing crisis. The solution is adding diversity to the market. Tasmania’s economy is a victim of its own success with positive population growth, ignited by tourism, leading to a housing supply shortage.
Further, figures released by the ANZ last week suggested that Hobart was the least affordable rental market in Australia at 35.8 per cent of income required to service a mortgage and 32.5 per cent required to pay rent (Launceston more affordable to buy than rent – 28.4 per cent to 29.7 per cent).
Without increased and diverse supply, this is clearly unsustainable leading to a growing category of Tasmanians - the working poor.
It is impossible to fathom a scenario where the minister and other members of cabinet were caught unaware to the extent of the housing problem, particularly having just sat through estimates where they should know more than anyone else in the room.
The fact that $43 million was committed for affordable housing in the state budget suggests awareness, but the problem remains that we probably need $143 million.
Unfortunately, because the fundamental issue of supply and keeping up with demand has not been addressed, we are left proposing solutions that may sound like a good idea but will not satisfy the community nor those left without a roof over their head.
There has been a market failure leaving people homeless and those from different walks of life unable to find a rental or even consider squirreling away the deposit for a home.
The supply shortage is due to developments taking up to 24 months to begin when we needed them started yesterday.
And it’s not the councillors failing to make decisions in the mandatory 42 days, it’s the raft of additional council approvals and coordination of agency and infrastructure providers that engages the supply handbrake.
The House of Assembly is the people’s house – questions must be asked, ministers must think clearly on their feet to answer concisely and honestly, and solutions devised as a result of careful interrogation.
Opposition parties should hold the government to account in a relentless and vigorous manner, but for a fundamental issue like housing they must also be part of the solution.
What many people don’t understand is that, aside from question time, parliament is convivial; friendships are formed across the chamber and most legislation is passed without fuss following constructive briefings and sharing of information.
And that’s what I find so difficult to reconcile - parliament appears unable to work together to provide additional housing for the most needy and vulnerable in our community through hastening supply. If that be the case, I’m not sure of any issue that will lead to collaboration.
It’s time for those who can make a difference to unite under one roof. And that must be through the leadership of the state government with the support of the parliament. Because punters know, bringing a brick into the House will not build one.
Comments
Post a Comment