Page 416 - Week 01 - Thursday, 11 December 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
any cash from the commonwealth?” Eventually we got a phone call back, “No, we haven’t.”
This is what I am talking about. We should be able to ask these questions and get answers without going through this endless process of going back. You can do that in an estimates process. You cannot do it properly in the way that we are going forward here tonight.
I do not believe anybody here will dispute any of the money that is being appropriated. I wish the Chief Minister well in getting the money out of his federal Labor colleague, the Prime Minister. If the agreement was made it is certainly money they should pay and we look forward to seeing that money appearing somewhere in the numbers.
Subclauses 7(4) and 7(5) agreed to.
Subclause 7(6).
MR SESELJA (Molonglo—Leader of the Opposition) (8.42): We certainly welcome the first homeowners boost. I think there are a number of reasons why this is important—obviously in the context of a slowing economy but also in the context of a housing affordability crisis which still has not eased, even if prices in some areas have fallen. We know that there is still a great challenge for first homebuyers.
In fact, we now see a real difference in policy between the Stanhope government and the Rudd government on this issue. The Rudd government is looking to help first home buyers, giving them the capacity to buy. On the one hand the Rudd government is giving them money to purchase and, on the other, much of that simply goes in taxes to the ACT government. We made it very clear during the election campaign that we believe it is reasonable to give serious tax relief to first homebuyers and that that is a good use of taxpayers’ funds because it goes into the hands of those who need it.
Mr Stanhope: And you decided that with knowledge of the global financial crisis?
MR SESELJA: We did not, but it is serendipitous, isn’t it, that good policy works in all sorts of ways? Indeed, while we did not predict it, it is good policy.
Mr Barr: And it is the un-means-tested nature of your proposal that is most appealing, isn’t it?
MR SESELJA: I guess the question for Mr Barr is: does he support the first homeowners boost? Is that means tested? I suppose Mr Barr, based on his interjection, does not support the first homeowners boost. Perhaps he should vote against this clause and then he could move an amendment. Maybe he could lobby his federal colleagues to means-test it. Where is he going to cut off the assistance for first homeowners? He supports it when Kevin Rudd does it un-means-tested, but when the Liberal Party puts it forward it is outrageous. It is very difficult to take someone seriously when they take such an approach.
This is a first homeowners boost; it goes to all first homebuyers. I believe it would also apply to houses up to $500,000. I do not think the Rudd government’s proposal
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .