Page 2845 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 24 June 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Seselja’s objection is that young Canberra families on incomes of less than $75,000 should own their own home—
Mr Smyth: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: the question is about the relationship of the partnership between the ACT government and the Community CPS credit union. Perhaps the Chief Minister will come back to the nature of the question.
MR SPEAKER: The point of order is upheld. Mr Stanhope, can we stick to the partnership.
MR STANHOPE: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Yes, of course, but that context is very relevant—the context in which the Liberal Party continue to attack not just the government and land rent but everybody associated with it: young Canberra families being attacked for daring to want to own a home, lending institutions for daring to enter into a partnership. It is now forbidden to declare that one has a partnership with the ACT government.
Mr Smyth: Mr Speaker, he cannot ignore you. He has got to come back to the nature of the partnership. The question is about the partnership.
MR STANHOPE: These are relevant considerations. Yes, we do have a partnership. The nature of the partnership is that the ACT government will provide land under a land rent arrangement. The CPS credit union have indicated that they will provide mortgage finance to eligible applicants or customers. It is a wonderful outcome, an outcome which the Liberal Party said we would never, ever see come to fruition.
We are proud of it. We are proud of what we have achieved. It has been something of a long battle, but it is important that governments have some stickability, that they not wobble all over the place like Mr Seselja has on this. Essentially, the mantra is: “It’s taken a year; you should have abandoned it. You should have folded; you should have given in. You shouldn’t have shown a bit of mettle.” That is the sort of response you get from the flim-flam man: “This is a bit hard. We don’t know why you persisted with it. We don’t know why you persisted with this really significant piece of social policy and progressive work. Why have you persisted with this, Chief Minister? Why have you been stubborn? Why have you stuck with it?”
I have stuck with it because this government cares. I have stuck with it because it is good policy. I have stuck with it because I want to see young Canberra families own their own homes.
MR SPEAKER: Mr Seselja, a supplementary question?
MR SESELJA: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Chief Minister, is the ACT government underwriting, indemnifying or in any way guaranteeing the facility that is being provided by the CPS credit union? If there is any such assistance, what is the extent of this assistance?
MR STANHOPE: The ACT government is providing no loans. We are not a financier. We are not in the business of negotiating with people in relation to the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .