Page 1991 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 25 June 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
were told that the early sessions are already booked out. That might be the case, but in the end how will we get this information out to people and how will they understand their rights?
The scheme will be linked to the homebuyers concession scheme, and that is a good thing. If that is the section of the market that we are aiming to help then that would be a good thing. But they will have a lease, and with that lease will come the associated rights, conditions and privileges. So at any given time people will need to look at their lease to make sure that they are accommodating the needs of that lease while at the same time continuing to be able to finance their lifestyle.
If, as Mr Barr has said, this is being aimed at people who earn income at the $50,000 mark after tax, and you break that down to 50 weeks, you are probably talking about somebody who takes home, in the hand, $800 or $850 a week. From that, they have to fund their family and their lifestyle, pay the mortgage on their home, and pay their land rent, which admittedly on the discounted scheme is only two per cent of the value of the land and four per cent if you are paying the full rate. At the same time, they have this objective of saving the 20 per cent deposit that it is expected will be put in place by the banks.
We asked about consultation in the briefing. I have to commend the Treasury on this. I think the consultation on this was quite good. We were told they had spoken to the banks, the Law Society, the valuers and the Real Estate Institute. In regard to whether or not the banks would fund the scheme, or fund lenders for the scheme, the answer was, “Well, that’s a decision for the banks.” So whilst there might be a great deal of interest in this scheme, the real question at the end of the day is: will the banks come up with the goodies? Will they provide the money so that people can access this scheme and use it?
There are a number of questions here. I know that Dr Foskey and Mr Seselja asked questions, and it would be good to hear the Chief Minister and Treasurer explain how he believes this will work, what further interaction there has been with the banks, what guarantees there have been from the banks and whether or not funding will be forthcoming so that people can go out and borrow against this scheme. I would hate to think that people may have got their hopes up, only to find, at the end of the day, that they cannot borrow.
Having said that, the opposition will not be supporting the scheme, for the reasons outlined by the Leader of the Opposition. We believe that, with a scheme that might help 120 people into the home of their choice, while that is an admirable objective, you have to question the use of the money. For instance, a rebate on the stamp duty for a first homebuyer will have a far more positive impact in this field and enable more people to get into the market and purchase not only their home but their land. We would commend our scheme to the Chief Minister. I know he does not like it, but in reality it is a scheme that will provide a far more effective use of revenue forgone than money locked away in an asset that will not necessarily, at the end of the day, even by the government’s own figures, be transferred to a great number of people.
If we are serious about living in the nation’s capital, in a country where the dream of homeownership—and everybody thinks of their land as part of that home package—is
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .