Page 940 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 25 February 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The ACT Greens will not be supporting this motion as it is written, because we believe that it is not focused enough on action at this time. I notice that Mr Smyth has circulated an amendment for it to go to the public accounts committee. The motion would set up an inquiry when what we really need is action. The inquiry will give everyone a chance to run their agendas, which in terms of the political parties here in the Assembly are well marked out. I note, too, that the public accounts committee has a number of annual reports hearings and presumably an inquiry into the third appropriation on its plate.
We would rather get things moving, so the Greens propose to amend the motion in order to put the government on notice that it needs to do the work now, consult appropriately, get some finance organised and get the scheme up and running in the next few months. I move:
Omit all words after “Notes with concern”, substitute:
“(a) that financial institutions are yet to make funds available to participants in the land rent scheme; and
(b) the impact of this uncertainty on would-be participants in the scheme; and
(2) calls on the ACT Government to:
(a) consult with industry groups and community organisations, including the Consumer Law Centre, on remaining issues of concern to ensure that the scheme:
(i) carefully considers the actual capacity of consumers to fund purchases and sustain the necessary debt;
(ii) provides some protection against the risk of negative equity associated with falling property values;
(iii) is wound up in the event that lenders cannot be found; and
(iv) does not result in participants bearing a cost if the scheme fails; and
(b) report back to the Assembly on the progress of the scheme in the first sitting week in June.”.
Keen observers will note that most of the words have been changed. However, I think we have been fairly respectful of the substance of Mr Seselja’s motion before moving to an action plan. In the first instance, the Greens do share the opposition’s concern that finance is not yet available for the scheme and that the uncertainty of this scheme is impacting on its would-be participants.
I note that we have taken a more constructive tone in this amendment. I appreciate that the language of parliament invites drama and overstatement. The more ferociously you write, the more impact you think you might have. It is our view that in this instance, however, the reverse is true.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .