Page 1292 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 25 March 2009

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


MR STANHOPE: The answer to the question is that negotiations are progressing and, as far as I am concerned, in the environment we are in and having regard to the innovative nature of many of the initiatives the government is pursuing, they are progressing well, as they are, as is the progress is in relation to community housing, land rent, OwnPlace, shared equity. The cumulative effect of each of these initiatives over time will be incredibly significant in the ACT.

MR SPEAKER: Mr Coe, a supplementary question?

MR COE: Yes. Chief Minister, how many homes have actually been delivered in this private rental dwelling scheme? Isn’t this the third housing affordability scheme that you have failed to deliver?

MR STANHOPE: As I indicated, Mr Speaker, the negotiations and planning in relation to each of the innovative aspects of the 63 initiatives within the affordable housing action plan are progressing well. Of course, they stand in stark contrast to the Liberal Party’s one and only housing affordability initiative, which is a half-million-dollar, middle-income McMansion approach that actually provides funding most specifically to the Liberal Party’s millionaire mates to allow them to actually buy houses for up to half a million dollars with complete exemption from stamp duty. Talk about middle class welfare! Talk about a single one-shop, populist position on housing affordability! The bottom line is that the Liberal Party do not care about young families. They do not care about working families. The continuing—

Mr Barr: Not unless you earn more than $120,000 a year.

MR STANHOPE: That is right.

Mr Smyth: Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order.

MR STANHOPE: If you earn more than $120,000 a year, even if you have a million dollars, you are still eligible for Zed Seselja’s stamp duty handout—a single, one-shop response.

MR SPEAKER: Chief Minister, there is a point of order.

Mr Smyth: Mr Speaker, the question was: how many homes have been delivered under this scheme or has the system failed? It was not about our policy.

MR SPEAKER: Mr Smyth, I am afraid there is no point of order. The second half of Mr Coe’s question was clearly of a sufficiently political nature that he invited Mr Stanhope to have a tirade on the opposition’s policies as well.

Mr Smyth: On the point of order: under what standing order are political tirades allowed to be delivered in question time, Mr Speaker? Answers must be relevant. The standing orders do not allow for the delivery of political tirades. In fact, they specifically rule against that.


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