Page 2599 - Week 09 - Tuesday, 25 September 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
bill through; you are the Treasurer and you are missing in action yet again—that the assumption underlying this assessment is that these home owners will seek to borrow all the funds needed to buy their homes, apart from their deposit; that is, they will borrow to pay the stamp duty.
That is not a reasonable assumption and there is no mention of it in the speech introducing this legislation. Indeed, the main reason people have to borrow to pay the stamp duty is that the quantum of stamp duty is now so high, especially when the impost of infrastructure costs is added to the price of the new blocks. Clearly, if first home buyers have to borrow to assist in paying the stamp duty, then any proposal to permit them to defer repaying this duty will be a saving simply because of the time value of money.
I have called for all the modelling that Mr Stanhope has undertaken of this proposal to be released. We are yet to see the modelling. There is no modelling at all. There is nothing concrete that he can provide this Assembly. We also see Mr Stanhope’s comment that the measure will save around $2,000. Where is the modelling of that claim? There is no modelling. If there were, he would table it; if it were accurate, he would table it; if it were clear, he would table it. So, Mr Stanhope, Treasurer and Chief Minister: show us your modelling.
We then went on to the confusion within the Stanhope government about the rate of interest that would be applied to the deferred duty. I put out a press release after the estimates hearing questioning it. I asked the official, who is the Commissioner for ACT Revenue, “What rate would they be charged? Are they going to be charged the same as the home loan rate?” The departmental officer said, “The home loan rate is about eight per cent, I think, at this moment.” I said, “Is that what you will be charging?” The departmental officer said, “It would be a similar rate, yes.” I said, “Similar higher, similar lower?” and he said, “It would be based on the benchmark which would be a commercial lending rate.”
To the embarrassment, I assume, of the Commissioner for ACT Revenue, he then had to write to Mr Gentleman, as the chairman of the Select Committee on Estimates, correcting the record. I will read the last paragraph from the letter. It says:
In addition, I understand that the Treasurer has now confirmed that the benchmark rate will be the 10 year government bond rate—
which is entirely different from a commercial rate; I think it was about six per cent this morning on the internet—
not a commercial lending rate as I indicated at the time.
The commissioner was sitting next to the Chief Minister. The commissioner told the estimates committee what he thought was happening, or his understanding of it. The Chief Minister sat there mute. The commissioner is forced to come back to the estimates committee to reveal that the Chief Minister did not tell him at the time or was loath to tell the estimates committee—and there is a question for the Chief Minister as well—what decisions had been made. The letter goes on to say:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .