Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2008 Week 05 Hansard (Wednesday, 7 May 2008) . . Page.. 1515 ..

most meaningful. It is for those households, which is why, under the government’s rules, homes up to $310,000 are exempt from stamp duty. It is targeted. It works. It sought to address, for a targeted group in our community, issues around their stresses.

The Liberal Party proposal does none of those things. It provides the largest concession to the wealthy. That is the other interesting aspect of it. The wealthier you are—

Mrs Burke: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I asked the Chief Minister why so many first home buyers are going to Queanbeyan, Yass, Jerrabomberra and Goulburn because they cannot afford to buy a home in Canberra.

MR SPEAKER: Come to the subject matter of the question, Chief Minister.

MR STANHOPE: As I say—and I will conclude on this point—there is no targeting. It actually advantages the more well-off, those that will buy the more expensive houses. The price will actually factor in several indices of house prices. That is why it will drive up prices. It will drive demand, and it is simply not effective.

The plans that the government has developed under its 62-point housing affordability strategy are real, genuine, targeted, working and put to shame cheap, populist stunts like this that have no regard to need and at the end of the day actually provide the greatest benefit to those with the greatest capacity to buy more expensive houses. The more you pay—in other words, the wealthier you are, the better off you are, the higher the price of the house you buy—the greater the discount you get. At every level it is a nonsense.

It actually applies to millionaires. It actually provides a greater benefit to those that pay the most. In other words, those with the greatest capacity to buy actually achieve the most; those with a lesser capacity then have to compete and receive the smallest breather. It is a nonsense policy; it is a stunt; it will not work; it is totally flawed; and the people of Canberra are too smart to fall for it.

Budget—community safety

MR GENTLEMAN: My question is to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services. Minister, can you please outline for the Assembly how the community safety initiatives announced in yesterday’s budget will help to ensure a safer, fairer Canberra?

MR CORBELL: I thank Mr Gentleman for the question. I am very pleased to provide some further information to the Assembly—

Mr Pratt: A very incisive question, Mick—well read.

MR CORBELL: about community safety. Once again, those who profess the greatest interest in community safety, such as Mr Pratt, show absolutely no interest in the answer.

Opposition members interjecting—

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .