Page 2601 - Week 09 - Tuesday, 25 September 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
$5,000 worth of stamp duty. The couple only became aware of this when the formal lease papers were available from the LDA’s solicitor. People are not being told that the payment is due. Surely you would send out a reminder notice, “Pay your 20 bucks before the end of the week; otherwise we are going to shift from $20 to $3,000, $4,000 or $5,000.” But no, that was not done either.
We were then contacted by another young man who has also provided me with extensive details of his experience in buying a lease on a new block of land—equivalent experience to the first couple. He is also adamant that he did not know of the requirement to pay the concessional duty within 90 days. Again, we are talking about paying $20! He only became aware when the formal lease papers were available from the LDA’s solicitor and, again, I am taking that matter up with the government.
There is a third incidence of another young man not being made aware of the requirement to pay the concessional duty within 90 days. It is almost an identical situation. Again, it is only $20. It defies belief that these people would not want to pay $20 to gain access both to the concessional duty and to the first home buyers scheme. I do not think anybody believes that people would deliberately delay paying 20 bucks and run the risk of paying several thousand dollars.
In summary, there have been a lot of crocodile tears from the government on this scheme and there has been a lot of doubt over the government’s estimates. We have not seen the government’s calculations that come to the conclusion of a saving of $2,000 on average. While we have no problems with measures to assist first home buyers to enter the market, I think it is important that there is clarity in the process to give people the opportunity to take advantage of these concessions. There is a clear failure of the Stanhope government previously and currently on this issue.
MR BARR (Molonglo—Minister for Education and Training, Minister for Planning, Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation, Minister for Industrial Relations) (11.56): I rise to support the Revenue Legislation (Housing Affordability Initiatives) Amendment Bill 2007 and to take the opportunity to respond to some of the comments made by those opposite.
Mr Mulcahy: Are you going to endorse my remarks?
MR BARR: No, I think you will be waiting a little while, Mr Mulcahy, for me to endorse your remarks. Some of your remarks from time to time on certain issues are accurate.
Mr Mulcahy: Like on economics?
MR BARR: As I think I have expressed in this place before, I do express some concern for you being perhaps one of the few members on your side of politics who has any understanding of economics. One need only look at the sorts of comments that are made by your colleagues behind you from time to time on matters to get a true appreciation of just how bereft the Liberal opposition is of any economic understanding.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .