It’s hard to contemplate what was going through Victorian Liberal MP Wendy Lovell’s brain when she uttered the words she did in Parliament yesterday.
During a debate on a Greens Public Housing bill, Lovell claimed there was “no point” in establishing social housing in affluent areas “where the children cannot mix with others”. She also suggested children from low-income families would face barriers in socialisation given their inability to afford “the latest in sneakers and iPhones”.
The former housing minister argued that vulnerable Victorians should have access to long-term social housing, integrated with both public and private residents.
“It only creates stigma if people can see that difference, so we need to make sure that [social housing] properties are not as identifiable as they have been in the past,” Lovell told the Legislative Council.
“We also need to make sure that we put those properties in areas where families are accepted and where families can flourish.
“There is no point putting a very low income, probably welfare-dependent family in the best street in Brighton where the children cannot mix with others or go to the school with other children, or where they do not have the same ability to have the latest in sneakers and iPhones.”
Lovell has since come under fire for the comments, with Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews labelling her perspective “fundamentally wrong”.
Victorian opposition leader, Matthew Guy said on Thursday that Lovell “means well” but her wording was clumsy.
“[She] made some exceptionally clumsy remarks in talking about stigmatisation,” he told reporters outside parliament.Advertisement
“As a former housing minister, she certainly tried to find the best intention. It hasn’t certainly been put that way. Social housing in my view should go where there are services available to people who need them.”
Premier Daniel Andrews dismissed Guy’s claim that Lovell had been “clumsy” with her words.
“No she didn’t… you can’t say those things then double down on it,” he said.
“I reject, in the clearest terms, the Liberal Party’s view that poor people should be kept poor and poor people should be kept away. That is wrong. That is fundamentally wrong.”