Page 936 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 25 February 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
have spoken to us. Part of the defence we heard from the Treasurer yesterday was that it was the global financial crisis. Well, the family that was in my office this week said that they were seeking finance in July of last year and they could not receive it under the land rent scheme.
Contrary to the position that the Chief Minister has put that these people would not ordinarily be eligible for any finance, that is not the experience of this family who sat in my office this week. They have actually been offered finance; they have been offered significant finance on a house and land package. They have a good savings history, the gentleman has a stable job, and the banks and financial institutions do not see them as a bad risk. They see them as a reasonable proposition. They have saved up a reasonable deposit. They have a reasonable income up towards the threshold where the land rent scheme cuts out and they have stable prospects, but they will not give them finance under this scheme. That is one of the falsehoods that is being put out there by the government on this issue—that these are people who could not otherwise get finance.
The people I spoke to have chosen to go for the land rent scheme because they do not want to take out that high level of finance, but what they have been offered is a dud scheme and what they have consistently received from financial institutions is the answer no. These are not people who are not eligible for finance. They have been offered finance, but not under the land rent scheme, and that is the fundamental problem. It is the scheme itself that is the problem, not the individuals.
We saw the language that was used by the Chief Minister on Tuesday in the Assembly:
So we looked for a way to deal with that disability. And we found one, an excellent one, a land rent scheme …
These are people who work hard, who have saved hard and who simply want to purchase their own home. What they are being offered is a dud scheme that does not work. The problem is not with them; the problem is with the scheme and with the false choice they have been offered by this government. They have pushed prices up so much, they have not made the changes necessary in the planning system and they continue to take significant amounts of taxation from first homebuyers. The government then turns around and says to them, “Well, we’ve got the solution for you”—the solution to the problem that they have created—“and that is the land rent scheme”.
I want to go through some of the particular parts of the motion. It is clear the government has failed to deliver a real and substantial improvement in housing affordability. The government has not identified to the Assembly which financial institutions will support the land rent scheme—they are anonymous. A number of those contracted to the scheme have or will accrue a stamp duty liability. The family that sat in my office this week will have a liability of $5,000 in stamp duty.
Let us just think about that for a moment. These people do not own the land; they are not purchasing land; they are renting land, and the government is taxing them $5,000.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .