Page 2906 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 24 June 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
He alluded to this in question time today. He alluded to there being arrangements in relation to defaults. We want to know what they are. I think it is reasonable that we get the detail on that and that we do not see him obfuscate for another month before giving a non-answer, as is his wont.
But we have a pattern of misleading here and we look forward—and Mr Corbell will be defending on this—not only to him defending the record and the public statements of the Chief Minister but, indeed, taking the opportunity to defend his record in pushing up prices in the ACT and making houses far less affordable for the people of Canberra. (Time expired.)
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for the Environment, Climate Change and Water, Minister for Energy and Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (5.37): The motion moved today by the opposition, which I note was hastily amended in the dead of the night to wipe some egg off the face of the Leader of the Opposition, is nothing but misrepresentations, a rehash of prejudices against Canberrans on modest incomes and, quite frankly, a bit of a hissy fit. Indeed, one quite envies the staff of Community CPS Australia, who are spending today fielding inquiries and helping Canberrans towards the great adventure of homeownership. But I am happy to again indulge Mr Seselja’s pathological interest, more than happy.
The motion before the Assembly today suggests that the Chief Minister misled the community prior to the last election about the level of support for the scheme because a major mortgage insurer indicated its lack of support. While it is not the government’s role to secure lenders mortgage insurance for banks or, indeed, to give banks advice on their risk coverage, the government did take steps to discuss the scheme with various mortgage insurers. One indicated support for the scheme. Another advised that they were going through a significant merger and were not in a position to consider new products.
Then there were the discussions with Genworth. The Chief Minister’s Department and Treasury were involved in discussions with representatives from Genworth between July and October last year. A record of these discussions is available via emails between the department and Genworth. These emails indicate clear support for the scheme right up until the last possible hour. Other than the final letter received from Genworth in late October last year, the response from Genworth had been generally positive. As late as August, Genworth was suggesting that final sign-off on a lenders mortgage insurance product for land rent was imminent.
On 5 August, in an email, the Genworth risk manager said:
I cannot see any reason why we would not accommodate LMI on this security type. Unfortunately, I need to go through the due process and obtain business sign-off and will advise when to hand.
Issues were subsequently raised on 2 September by the Genworth legal and property services unit, and these issues were discussed by teleconference on 8 September. The impression left at the end of that meeting was that the issues raised had been
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .