Page 875 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 24 February 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
In fact, some of these people, some of these 39 families, have accrued stamp duty debts of around $5,000. Think about that: a land rent scheme with stamp duty! Last time I rented something, whether it be a car or perhaps a TV, I do not think you paid stamp duty on it. In this scheme there is. We are not accusing the government of being sly about this fact about stamp duty; we are not accusing them of that. But we are saying that this scheme has not got all the silver lining that you might hope for. What this scheme has done is let down people at every step along the way.
What the Chief Minister has done today, by saying that there is another financial provider that has given in-principle agreement and that he will not name in this place, is giving more hope to the 39 families that have signed up for a better deal. If the in-principle does not quite turn into reality, that is more hope that is going to be dashed by what is a scheme that is absolutely riddled with problems.
In actual fact, we in the opposition did oppose the scheme at the time. We raised a lot of concerns about the scheme. We said you would have trouble pulling it off. We said you would have trouble getting finance. Here they are, eight months later, with frustrated families, refusing even to acknowledge it. He will not even acknowledge the banks. He will protect the anonymity of a bank, he will protect a national or an international banking organisation, but he will not protect the privacy of people that have contacted my office, in good spirit, trying to get an answer, trying to get a house on the block of land that they had allocated to them. I find it pretty amazing and pretty indicative of what this government is all about.
Mr Stanhope raised, in his speech earlier, that I had contacted his office on numerous occasions. And I have; I have contacted his office about many constituent inquiries. On not one of those, have I given away the name or address of someone that has contacted my office. I think, if they contact my office about something which is not directly about their personal welfare—it could be about something in their street; it could be about a pothole down the road—I do not need to give their name and address.
Here we have the Chief Minister demanding the names and addresses of people that have contacted my office. I find that pretty outrageous. I find it pretty outrageous that a person that tries to be this great advocate of social justice, a great advocate of the Westminster system, a great advocate of integrity, would come into this place and demand that I give over names and addresses of people that contacted my office.
To be honest, I think if I directly contacted the people that contacted my office and told them about this motion, that would confirm in their minds, it would reaffirm why they contacted the opposition and why they did not go to the government. The way you are handling this issue, the way you are handling this motion, the way you are handling these 39 families, is disgraceful. The smokescreen you try to create by moving a motion like this, trying to get the names and addresses so that you can write to them about who knows what, I find pretty disappointing.
In conclusion, I think this motion is disgraceful and I would urge all those here to vote against it.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .