Page 2848 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 24 June 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
are best placed to make those decisions and to make the conclusions that they need to make in relation to this product.
The nature of loans that CPS issue under the land rent scheme is an issue for CPS. But I am advised that, of all of those people, particularly those people seeking to access land rent at two per cent, that is at the concessional rate—and I think there are about 45 or 46—every single one of them through the process has been appraised of the likely deposit required by CPS of them; in other words, 20 per cent. Every single one, I am advised, of those people seeking a concessional rate under land rent is aware that they will be required to pay 20 per cent. Every single one of them is prepared to pay 20 per cent—because they know how attractive this is. They know what is needed for them to take that first step into home ownership—and of course it is always the first step into home ownership that is the most difficult; it is the entry that is most difficult for most people—and they are desperate for this product. They are desperate for land rent. They are desperate to own their own home and they have given every indication to my officers that they are aware of the likely requirement. They might not like it, they might have preferred something else, but they are aware of it, they understand it and they are prepared to remain with the scheme in the event—so 100 per cent.
I see references today that 99.9 per cent of potential applicants will not apply. Well, of the ones that we know of, the ones that actually have reserved land, 100 per cent know of it and 100 per cent intend to proceed.
MR SPEAKER: A supplementary question, Mr Smyth?
MR SMYTH: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Chief Minister, why do your written press statement and your latest taxpayer-funded ad both fail to disclose that the land rent deposit required is four times the size of a normal loan provided by the lender?
MR STANHOPE: Once again, you do need to bring some perspective to this. I really would urge on the opposition, on the Liberal Party, in relation to what is, for some people, an incredibly exciting opportunity to own their own home, that they have some regard to the implications for all of those young—
Mr Hanson: Who is that, Jon?
MR STANHOPE: They are actually young Canberra families that earn less than $75,000. You do not come in touch with these people, I know, Jeremy; they are alien to you. Not only do you not come in touch with them, Jeremy, you do not like them. And we know that.
Mr Seselja: Keep your eye on the ball; you aren’t playing too well.
MR STANHOPE: Nor does Mr Seselja. I say that there is an interesting pathology in relation to this. What is it that Zed Seselja—
Mr Hanson: We don’t want them to get sucked into this dreadful scheme.
MR STANHOPE: How patronising is that! Mr Hanson does not want young families earning $75,000 or less to be sucked into home ownership. Mr Hanson does not want
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .