HomeBuilder Program

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (15:24): Yes. Does the government intend to offer any further incentives to the stimulus, apart from what it has already announced? It hasn't really announced much, but does it intend to add further to the stimulus?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (15:24): As I outlined in the statement to the house two weeks ago, the taxpayers of South Australia—it's not the government—have already put their hands in their pockets to the tune of $1 billion and there has been an extra $1 billion of stimulus that the taxpayers of South Australia have provided by way of bringing forward funding from future years into South Australia, so the stimulus provided directly and indirectly by the taxpayers of South Australia has been either $1 billion or, on a more general definition, $2 billion of stimulus.

In relation to the specific question, no. I have ruled this out on a number of occasions in this chamber and publicly as well and that is, we won't be adding an additional home owners grant or HomeBuilder grant or the abolition of stamp duty on the purchase of the first home. The proof in the pudding of the state government's position is that the current package has attracted more than 4,000 expressions of interest. So there is considerable potential demand out there with the current range of incentives that both the federal and state taxpayers are providing.

The South Australian government only uses money that the taxpayers provide us with and despite the notion, as glibly as it might fall off some people's tongues, 'Why not give them another $20,000 first-home owner grant and how great would that be', in the end you have to make some decisions. If you already have more than 4,000 people interested in purchasing or building a new home with the current incentives, how much more incentive or stimulus do you need?

There are already some within the building industry who are expressing the view that if ultimately there are 4,000 eligible applicants, it may well be difficult to get all those buildings away within the strict six-month time frame and the three-month time frame that the federal government has already outlined from the signing of the contract to the commencement of construction. I am sure the Hon. Mr Pangallo, with his contacts in the construction industry, would be aware of the concerns some have about the tightness of that particular time frame.

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Pangallo, you have a supplementary?