Page 2901 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 24 June 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
and he ordered an ad, with no information. But it will be interesting to see whether or not there is an ad or a letter to the editor to respond to some of this or at least to say, “Come on, where is my vindication headline.” He did not get it. He did not get it because there are still some serious reservations.
In fact, the first paragraph actually does what the Chief Minister refused to tell us yesterday. He refused to tell us yesterday that low income earners seeking to own a home under the ACT government’s controversial land rent scheme will require a 20 per cent deposit to qualify for finance. He neglected to mention this yesterday. In fact, he had ample opportunity yesterday in the chamber to actually tell us this but he chose not to. This is the debate he did not want because he actually has to go into some of the detail. He actually has to be examined on some of the detail.
We had the deputy chief executive of Community CPS Australia, Robert Keogh, say the company would lend 80 per cent of the cost to build. He said:
Let’s say the building cost is $200,000 … the person that is going into the Land Rent Scheme would need to save $40,000 …
A Canberra mortgage broker said he would be surprised if low income earners could save the deposit. He said:
It will cut out 99.9 per cent of the low income earners.
I think that may be an exaggeration from the mortgage broker; nonetheless, he is expressing a concern about how many low income families will actually be able to access this scheme as proposed now by the government in partnership.
Mr Corbell: He did not think any of them would. That same source said there would be no lender ever secured.
MR SESELJA: We actually have him saying 99.9 per cent. I think that probably is an exaggeration. It must be said it is an exaggeration. But it is fair to say that a $40,000 deposit for a family on around $50,000 a year, which is what Jon Stanhope yesterday in the chamber talked about as the target group, is a big ask. I take my hat off to any young family who is able to save $40,000 on that kind of income; that is a fundamentally impressive effort. But there is no doubt that, for many, that will prove simply too much. This is what the Chief Minister did not want to talk about yesterday and did his very best to avoid talking about it.
Indeed, we saw a number of contradictions. In terms of the motion, in a moment I will go to some of the misleads before the election. But we did see some contradictions, even in what I have just quoted, between what Mr Keogh had to say and, in fact, what Mr Stanhope is now saying. In fact, Mr Stanhope has contradicted himself on this issue, and that is the cost of building.
Mr Keogh took a cost. He said, “Let’s say the cost of building is $200,000, with a $40,000 deposit.” That is a pretty reasonable assumption, about $200,000. The Chief Minister, who told us in estimates that, indeed, you could not get a house built in the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .