Page 2888 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 24 June 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
He needs to clarify that; he needs to say what he meant. Is he saying that under land rent they would get a substandard house that really does not meet any of the standards, a house with no carpet, a house that has none of the basic fittings or fixtures, just a shell of a house? Is that what he is saying he is offering to people, to low income and middle income families under land rent? There is a significant contradiction there.
Madam Assistant Speaker, in the time I have left, I will just conclude by saying this to the government: you need to get the fundamentals right. Clearly, in all of those areas of land release, competition, planning reform and taxation you have not got it right. What you have done instead is put all your eggs in schemes such as land rent, and we will touch on that in the next motion. You have put all your eggs in that one basket, and we seen what a struggle it has been. Of course, it has all come at the expense of actually getting the fundamentals right.
MS BRESNAN (Brindabella) (4.41): I will not be making extensive comments on this motion or, I have to say, on Mr Seselja’s motion on the land rent scheme, which is coming up, seeing as they are essentially two sides of the same coin.
In terms of affordable homeownership more broadly, this government has taken a number of welcome steps in the past few years. Mandating 15 per cent of new greenfield developments for affordable homeownership will make a difference. The transfer of assets to CHC Affordable Housing may well result in an increase in supply of affordable homeownership through a different path. Both of these actions by the ACT government should be acknowledged.
The other points I wish to make about affordable homeownership centre on the cost of living, the cost of energy, good planning and design. It is not just about having houses available at a particular price. It is also about having energy efficient, warm and comfortable homes well served by public transport and close to health, community and retail facilities.
The Greens are not convinced that home building and suburban design yet delivers adequately on these aspects of affordability. I know that government agencies would claim that they have lifted their game; but the bottom line is still a bottom line of house size rather than the quality of construction.
With regard to the land rent scheme, we are pleased that a credit provider has signed up. I am not convinced that the land rent scheme will provide access to homeownership for as many people on low incomes as has been claimed, simply because the deposit that will be needed, at least while there is only one credit provider, will be substantial. The lender at this stage is asking for a 20 per cent deposit. On the other hand, with $21,000 being handed out to all first homeowners for a few months more, that deposit is much more achievable now than it would have been in the past or is likely to be in the future.
The Greens have supported the land rent scheme because it is an innovative program providing access to homeownership to some people for whom it would otherwise probably be out of the question.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .