Page 2902 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 24 June 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
ACT for $200,000, is now saying, in the context of the size of the deposit—he was cornered by journalists asking, “Isn’t $40,000 a lot?”—“It’s not $40,000; you could get a house for much less than $200,000.” He used the figure of $150,000. I am not sure whether he actually used an even lower figure.
Mr Stanhope now needs to actually say is it $150,000, is it $120,000, is it $180,000 or is it $200,000, as he previously said, or is he saying that not only should those who access the land rent scheme be content with not owning the land but they should also be content with a substandard house which does not have any of the basic fittings? Is that what he is saying? It would appear that that is the only conclusion we could draw, based on the evidence we saw before us in the estimates committee when this issue was raised.
The other part of the article which, of course, Mr Stanhope would not have liked and which would not fit with his message was that Australia’s biggest mortgage insurer, Genworth Financial, refused to support the ACT land rent scheme because it was too high risk. A company spokeswoman told the Canberra Times in May it abandoned the land rent scheme following a risk assessment which raised significant concerns. Mr Stanhope said Genworth withdrew because it was hit by the global financial crisis.
I will repeat that. Genworth said it abandoned the land rent scheme following a risk assessment which raised significant concerns. But Mr Stanhope said Genworth withdrew because it was hit by the global financial crisis. So Jon Stanhope says they are liars, essentially. That is what he is saying about Genworth; he is saying that what they said in their letter was a lie.
Ms Porter: The two things are not mutually exclusive.
MR SESELJA: He cannot have it both ways. He is saying that they are not telling the truth. They said it was not. I understand that Mr Keogh, yesterday when asked, in the coverage I saw on the television last night, also said that it was not the global financial crisis.
So Jon Stanhope’s narrative about the flaws in the scheme, where it was all about the global financial crisis, was thoroughly rejected by Genworth. His response to that is to call them liars; presumably he is also calling his partners liars. If it was true for Genworth that it must have been the global financial crisis, as Mr Stanhope claims, then surely what Mr Keogh is saying is also a lie. Is he also calling into question the integrity and the truthfulness of Mr Keogh, his partner?
We had this letter—and it is worth referring to this letter—which goes to the truthfulness of what Mr Stanhope had to say prior to the election. We had this letter to Elisabeth Judd on 14 October 2008, four days before the election, where, indeed, Genworth set out a number of reasons why it would not support the scheme. The government was told four days out that the major insurer of financial institutions would not support the scheme. It gave a number of reasons—seven. Mr Smyth may well expand on them if he has time. There are a number of them. Of the seven reasons, none of them is the global financial crisis.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .