Page 948 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 25 February 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
As Mr Seselja has pointed out so eloquently, this is a scheme that right back, eight months ago, did not have financial backing. What we have is a Chief Minister who was then Treasurer peddling false hope, saying, “We want to help you live the dream, but we are not going to change the things that would genuinely allow you to get into the housing market.” We are not going to look at the wasteful spending of the LDA on advertising. We are not going to look at the flawed planning system and the fee structure that you have that slow down people getting into the system. What we are going to look at is this airy-fairy land rent scheme.
On the percentages—and you can only go by the percentages; we heard them yesterday, 340 people have attended, 40 blocks are held, four have exchanged and one has settled—the one person settling is 0.29 per cent of those that attended. That is a failure by any measure. The four that are holding blocks is 2½ per cent. That four have exchanged and one has settled is a damning indictment of a system that does not work.
The Greens have moved an amendment—and we have looked at your amendment to the motion—but your amendment fails to address primarily what we are seeking to find out here: the failure of the government to identify the supposed institution that will lend, the liability of accrued stamp duty; things like the requirement to pay stamp duty, whether or not there will be reasonable reimbursement of expenses. We think this is worthy of answers from the government and we think it is worthy of an explanation in committee by the government.
I note, with interest, that the Greens now think that inquiries are there simply to allow people to run their own agendas. We will look at all committees in future in light of that statement from the Greens. But the reality is that people are coming to the opposition, they have spoken to us. They earn less than $75,000 a year. They are saying that they can actually borrow double what they would want to borrow if they can own the land. But they do not want to do that. What they can’t do is borrow money to be part of Jon Stanhope’s flawed land rent scheme.
I have an amendment that I will move that refers the land rent scheme to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts for inquiry and report. I understand it will be done after Ms Bresnan’s amendment is dealt with. It is important we get to the bottom of this. It is important we find out how they came up with this scheme. It is important we see the modelling so that all can know how badly flawed this scheme truly is. (Time expired.)
MS HUNTER (Ginninderra—Parliamentary Convenor, ACT Greens) (11.07): I speak in support of Ms Bresnan’s amendment. The amendment takes on board the inevitable impact of the global financial crisis on this land rent scheme. The Greens are concerned that there is still no finance provider in the market for this product. The government has doubtless been active behind the scenes trying to get someone on board. Sometimes acting sensibly behind the scenes is not reassuring for those people out in front.
It is our view that the government needs to come back to the Assembly, having done a fair bit of work on the known concerns with this scheme, and hopefully with at least
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .