Page 3887 - Week 13 - Tuesday, 4 December 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
They are not fussy; they are simply looking for any in that they can get into the market, whether they are lucky enough to be able to buy a new house or whether it is an old three-bedroom house in the outer suburbs which are going, in many places, for well over $300,000. Many of these people are desperate to get into the market, and the government has not assisted them. It has continually failed in this area.
All we see are PR stunts. We see announcements and re-announcements. Then we have the stark example of this failure when, of 700 Canberra families, 650 of them are missing out on their dream of home ownership as a result of this government’s policies. “It really must be because they are fussy” is the message that this government, through the Chief Minister and now through the planning minister, are giving to these young people.
The fact that we are only now seeing the $1.45 million to aid in accelerated land release is an admission of failure by this government. It is an admission that they simply have not kept up with the demand. It is not like it has been sprung on them in the last six months or since the budget. It has been well known for at least 18 months, if not longer. We have seen a significant pick-up in demand. There was an anticipated pick-up in demand in part because of the significant growth of the commonwealth public service. It is not as if the Chief Minister and his predecessor in Simon Corbell have not been told and not been warned before this time.
We have consistently asked about this. When I asked the previous planning minister about this issue, I was consistently told that there was enough; in fact that there was enough on the shelf ready to come on line quickly. That simply has proven to be false. I think the government’s statements in relation to the Franklin ballot in particular are an outrage and a slap in the face to first home buyers in the territory.
MRS BURKE (Molonglo) (4.57): I would like to start with a comment from page 4 of the Chief Minister’s presentation speech, just to put on the public record how wrong Mr Corbell was in his comment.
Mr Seselja: Wrong again?
MRS BURKE: He was. I am sorry, Mr Seselja, to have to say this publicly but Mr Corbell was wrong. In fact, comment was made in the Chief Minister’s speech. He said:
I welcome the opposition’s generally positive reception of these initiatives.
That needs to be said. But let us have a look at some of the initiatives. I will particularly keep my comments to the area of health. Nobody would ever say anything bad about those particular initiatives. The timing of the initiatives might be an interesting conversation stopper.
However, I would support all the comments made, particularly by the shadow Treasurer, Mr Mulcahy, and Mr Stefaniak and my other colleagues. Mr Mulcahy said words to this effect: the expenditure, in itself relatively minor, speaks volumes for the attitude and priorities of the Stanhope government to react to more money—and this
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .