Page 2741 - Week 08 - Tuesday, 23 June 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The Liberal Party deserve to be absolutely ashen-faced about their position on this matter because month after month after month they have criticised, carped, complained and moaned on this issue. They have relentlessly—
Opposition members interjecting—
MR SPEAKER: Order, members!
MR CORBELL: They do not like it, Mr Speaker. They do not like it, which is quite obvious. It is quite obvious from the level of interjections, Mr Speaker, that they just do not like the fact that they have been proven wrong. They simply do not like the fact that they have been proven wrong, and it is evident from the objections. It is evident from the ongoing objections that we hear from them that it is a very sore point indeed.
The bottom line is that this is an innovative scheme and the government has been vindicated in its approach in relation to this policy with the securing of a major finance provider—a major finance provider.
I would like now to turn also to the issue of OwnPlace and I note that there has been considerable to and fro about OwnPlace. The first point to be made, of course, about this is that it is entirely legitimate for the government to seek to correct misinformation that has been put out by the Liberal Party. If media reports are inaccurate, it is entirely appropriate for the government to seek to correct the record, and that is indeed what the government did.
It is an absurd and bizarre position from the Liberal Party, yet again, that when there is a report that is inaccurate and which serves to cause confusion in the community the government in some way should simply remain mute; the government should simply not reply to matters that are inaccurate. We have seen what happens when members of the Liberal Party get their noses out of joint; they get matters referred off to the privileges committee when they are unhappy about matters. But apparently it is not acceptable for the government to simply seek to correct the record.
Let us turn to the issue at play here. (Second speaking period taken.) It was interesting to look at the recommendations and also to look at the committee’s response. Mr Coe, in the estimates committee, basically alleged that there was profiteering. In fact, he implied quite explicitly that it would appear that builders were adding up to $60,000 onto the price of a house as a result of entering into the OwnPlace scheme. What an outrageous assertion for the Liberal Party and Mr Coe to make—without any evidence of course; they just made it blatantly under parliamentary privilege.
At 6 pm, in accordance with standing order 34, the debate was interrupted. The motion for the adjournment of the Assembly having been put and negatived, the debate was resumed.
Sitting suspended from 6 to 7.30 pm.
MR CORBELL: Before the dinner break I was commenting on the fact that the Liberal Party had engaged in a shameful campaign to besmirch the name of reputable
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .