Statutes Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 29 August 2024.)

The Hon. H.M. GIROLAMO (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (16:56): I rise to speak on the Statutes Amendment (Budget Measures) 2024 Bill—even though we are currently in 2025—and indicate that I am the lead speaker for the opposition. This has been a long time coming, so it is a good opportunity now to reflect on last year's budget as we work through this bill.

Now more than ever South Australians are succumbing to the pressures of the rapidly increasing cost of living. Across the state families and businesses are tightening their spending in their own personal budgets while this government should be doing the same. Instead, the Malinauskas Labor government has been on a spending spree, resulting in almost every single government department overspending in the last financial year.

The Premier's own department, which is where he likes to hide away his pet projects such as government spending, has overspent by a casual $57 million. Minister Bettison could not resist a marketing campaign, and has overspent by $54 million. The Malinauskas Labor ministry has the highest spending of any South Australian government on record. I would also like to note there were no measures of operating or investment savings outlined in the 2024-25 budget, indicating that departments have not been asked or been required to actively find efficiencies or increase productivity—all while debt continues to rise.

When I first wrote this speech some months ago, South Australia was heading towards $44 billion of debt by the end of the forward estimates in 2027. In just a few short months, Labor has updated its debt balloon by an additional $2 billion. In just two years South Australia will be carrying $46 billion of debt. Where will it actually land over the coming forward estimates? I fear for the future generations that will inherit Labor's ever expanding debt balloon.

However, future generations have more to worry about than the cost of the Premier's vanity projects. What is at the forefront of many South Australians' minds, particularly young South Australians, is buying their first home. Whilst we welcome every effort to assist new homebuyers here in South Australia, may I remind the Premier, the Treasurer and the Minister for Housing that South Australia is the only state without a first-home buyers stamp duty concession on existing homes.

We, the opposition, will continue to call on our existing policy, which is to have a $10,000 stamp duty concession for first-home buyers on existing properties up to the value of $750,000. I foreshadow now that the opposition will not be supporting the Hon. Frank Pangallo's amendments to include existing homes for the current first-home owners grant. Whilst we commend the honourable member's efforts to assist first-home buyers to get into the housing market, we believe that the concession approach rather than a government grant is more appropriate.

Some South Australians are not just concerned about owning property but also about continuing to run their own businesses. Despite the current economic climate that is seeing businesses close at alarming rates, and more recently reports that South Australian businesses have the second lowest business confidence in the country, there were next to no measures in this Labor budget introduced to offer relief for South Australian businesses.

A budget is about priorities, and clearly small and family businesses do not feature highly in the Premier's priority list when it comes to offering cost-of-living relief. While South Australians are struggling to pay their bills, struggling to buy a home, or struggling to keep the doors of their business open, this government is receiving record revenue—absolute rivers of gold. Since coming into government in March 2022, total revenue from payroll tax, stamp duty and land tax has increased by 26 per cent. That is an increase of $897 million per year of revenue.

Payroll tax alone has increased by 33 per cent in this financial year's budget, an increase of $483 million per year since they came into government in March 2022. Payroll tax will continue to increase as Labor's new GP payroll tax is realised. Make no mistake, this massive increase in government revenue has not come from any investment or savings measures, but rather from squeezing more out of South Australian households and businesses through bracket creep, through taxes and hiking up rates.

Our policies remain. We will continue to call for the payroll tax threshold to be lifted, as well as providing further relief by exempting apprentices and trainees from payroll tax. More importantly, to keep the household within budget, we would axe the GP payroll tax that has seen visits to doctors increase by $10 or more in some cases. We are calling on the government to implement these as the first commonsense steps to provide relief for our businesses and our community in this state.

I have a genuine concern for the finances of the state. I am concerned about our debt increasing, our economy and, most importantly, I am concerned for our young people in South Australia being able to afford housing. This budget is not about the priorities of the South Australian people that this government should be taking care of. This government has the wrong priorities. With that, I look forward to discussion during the committee stage.

The Hon. J.S. LEE (17:01): I rise today to make a brief contribution to support the Statutes Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill 2024. Notwithstanding some honourable members have already mentioned that this particular bill has not done enough to address the cost-of-living crisis, I wish to take this opportunity to highlight a few key measures that are included in the bill. No doubt all of us in this place are well aware that South Australia is in the grip of a housing crisis, with a lack of supply and surging prices placing significant barriers on those trying to enter the housing market.

Stamp duty is the largest taxation liability when purchasing a new home, and a major impediment to home ownership and economic growth. It is encouraging to see that the government is making amendments to relevant legislation to remove the property stamp duty threshold for eligible first-home buyers on new homes or vacant land.

I am also supportive of removing the property value cap of $650,000 for the First Home Owner Grant. These measures will hopefully provide incentive for aspirational people trying to enter the home ownership market, improve housing affordability for first-home buyers and encourage an increase of supply in the market. I am also encouraged by the fact that this bill includes an amendment to the Payroll Tax Act to create a payroll tax exemption on the wages of general practitioners related to bulk-billed services, but I join many honourable members in this place and the other place to argue that this measure does not go far enough.

We have seen that visiting a GP is getting more and more expensive, with a new report from healthcare directory Cleanbill showing that over the past year the average out-of-pocket cost for a GP visit increased by 4.1 per cent nationally. Cleanbill also reported that patients are being bulk-billed less, with the proportion of bulk-billing clearly decreasing by 3.5 per cent nationally since last year. GPs already run on very thin margins and cannot absorb increasing costs such as the government's new payroll tax, which came into effect on 1 July 2024.

The rising cost of GP visits means that more South Australians are turning away from making appointments, leading to increased pressure on emergency departments and worse health outcomes for patients. While the government argues that this payroll tax exemption on bulk-billed service is meant to be an incentive for GPs to bulk-bill more patients, the reality is that bulk-billing rates are decreasing and average South Australians are paying more at each visit.

This could compromise health outcomes for so many vulnerable members of our community. This matter seriously requires the attention of government to address. I understand many honourable members have proposed a number of amendments, and I will consider those amendments during debate and the committee stage. With those brief remarks, I commend the bill.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (17:05): I rise to speak very briefly on the Statutes Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill. I reckon I could stand here for the next three hours and talk about payroll tax, and I am glad that the Hon. Jing Lee has highlighted the issues that she has just highlighted, because we all know that that is one area in particular where this government has absolutely zero appetite for any reform. It is not only disappointing, I think it is worse than that.

We keep seeing in the hospitality industry, in particular, places closing left, right and centre. The cost of doing business we hear is going great but that sector in and of itself is indicative of the sorts of impacts that payroll tax has on us. The GPs have run a campaign which we have all ventilated in this place very well in terms of the impact of payroll tax, and the bottom line is that this government has done absolutely zero to even consider even just an independent review, despite the passage of a motion in this place and the will of this place being expressed in terms of having a motion to look at reforms in the area of payroll tax that could provide not only well-needed but such necessary relief to businesses across the state who have, across every industry and sector, said effectively, 'Payroll tax is killing us and it is making business difficult.'

I suspect that probably just before the next election we will see some announcement around payroll tax, but my concern is the number of—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Exactly, too little too late. My concern is for those businesses that are going to shut their doors in the meantime because they simply cannot afford their payroll tax debt. I think it is $1.8 billion that we get in revenue from payroll tax, and the Treasurer says, 'Find me another income stream that can earn that and we will get rid of payroll tax.' I think that is a pretty lousy excuse. But enough about payroll tax, because we know what those issues are and we have ventilated them well in here.

I focus my amendments—and I might speak to it now for the benefit of members—on a part that I found peculiar about this bill, and that is part 4 which is the National Electricity (South Australia) Act changes. It seems to me that those changes—and we know that when it comes to this issue they are part of national reforms—have just been slid into the budget bill instead of actually being considered as a separate bill.

I have to think back to my briefing, but I asked, 'What is the relevance of this to the budget?' and there is absolutely none. There is absolutely no rhyme or reason or logic as to why the government did this, other than just sneaking it into a bill maybe so we do not look too closely at it. But as innocent as those provisions may be, I absolutely see no reason for this. I do not think there is any logical reason, and certainly there was not one provided to me other than, 'Well, this was an opportunity to have this issue dealt with and we needed it dealt with, so we stuck it in the budget bill.'

That excuse does not fly with me. It is not frivolous. I think if we are going to consider changes to our national electricity scheme then we should be considering them in the way that we ordinarily do, through the introduction of a bill that actually focuses on that, on the National Electricity Rules. It is for that reason that I have actually sought to delete those provisions from this bill. It is a budget measures bill. This is not a budget measure by any stretch of the imagination, so for what it is worth, my proposal is that we remove that from this bill and deal with it separately as we normally would when it comes to issues that deal with the National Electricity Rules.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (17:10): It is nice to be back. I rise to speak briefly on the budget measures bill of 2024 and to indicate where the Greens sit on some of the filed amendments. As is the case each year, this bill is the legislative companion to the government's budget. Some of the measures contained in the bill are positive measures that will support South Australians. In particular, the Greens are supportive of removing stamp duty for eligible first-home buyers on the purchase of a new home on vacant land and removing the value cap for the First Home Owner Grant for eligible contracts.

I recognise that these measures will support some people who are trying to enter the housing market, but of course we know that this is only rewarding those South Australians who are lucky enough to be able to purchase their own home. It does not do anything to address the broader issues that we face around housing affordability in our state. I have a bill before parliament that would increase the requirement on developers to build more social and affordable housing, lifting the requirement from just 15 per cent to 30 per cent, significantly boosting the availability of affordable housing and social housing in our state. I urge the Labor Party to support that.

We also need to see action for renters in this budget. The Greens have been campaigning for a long time to extend the Cost of Living Concession to renters. I acknowledge the Malinauskas government's leadership in doing that in the last budget, but we need to see the government go further in terms of providing support to renters who are struggling. We need a rent freeze. The Greens have been campaigning for this for some time. We know that a freeze of rents, if it had been instituted last year when the Greens first proposed it, would have saved South Australians thousands and thousands of dollars in rent.

It is not okay that we have some South Australians who are making a motza, some landlords who are making record profits, and rent prices continue to skyrocket while other South Australians are continuing to struggle to make ends meet and to be able to provide a home for their family. Renting is not a choice for most South Australians—it is the only option that they have—and housing is a fundamental human right. So I am disappointed that there has not been action on the circumstances that renters face within this bill.

I do recognise that the government has taken some action on payroll tax for GPs. It is an issue that the Greens, along with the Hon. Connie Bonaros and other members in this place, were very active on last year. We do call, however, for the government to extend that exemption in the regulations to practitioners such as physiotherapists and dentists, who are being affected in the same way as GPs. This comes after the New South Wales Supreme Court decision that found that tenant GPs, who pay a percentage of their earnings to a clinic rather than being paid a wage, count as employees for payroll tax purposes.

We will be supporting this bill on the basis that there is some positive change in that regard, and of course we support the budget measures bill as is the convention in terms of enabling the activities of the government. I am also disappointed, in terms of talking about health, that there was no action on ambulance call-out fees. The Greens made a submission to the government. We called on them to slash those fees and to bring South Australia into line with other states. Again, there is no action.

I just want to touch on the Liberals harping about debt. I think it is fair to say that some of their critique is disingenuous. They were in government, as we know, for that brief period when the Treasurer, Rob Lucas, handed down an enormous deficit. I make no criticism of that because he was dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic, and I think it was right that the Marshall government provided support to some South Australians who were struggling. So I make absolutely no criticism of that, but to then come into this chamber years later and start banging on about debt is, I think, a bit rich, given the circumstances that every state government and every government has faced nationally as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Liberals talk about debt in their budget response, but they have no plan to deal with it other than cutting public services, which they say is not on the cards. They say they do not want to privatise public services either, which is good, but then I do not see how they are going to plug the debt. They talk about cost-of-living relief, but then when honourable members put forward suggestions for dealing with cost of living, they are vehemently opposed to them. So I do not know what exactly their approach is. I am none the wiser in terms of how they would do things differently. Maybe between now and the election they will actually outline a vision to the people of South Australia.

In terms of some of the amendments that have been filed on this bill, I note the Hon. Frank Pangallo has filed an amendment in relation to stamp duty. The Greens do not support the Hon. Frank Pangallo's amendment and I have indicated to the honourable member my reasons for that. Whilst we want to reform stamp duty, we do not believe this should be done as a standalone measure. To do so would blow a huge hole in the budget and not actually address housing affordability, unless it is accompanied by action on land tax. Indeed, I am very open to looking at what we can do in that space and whether there is a more equitable way that we can approach land tax and then reduce stamp duty.

So let's keep that conversation going, but we will not be supporting the Hon. Frank Pangallo's amendment on the basis that it really pulls the rug out in terms of taking action where it is needed. I also note the amendment from the Hon. Connie Bonaros. I do understand her sentiments in relation to that, but we will not be supporting the Hon. Connie Bonaros's amendment in this instance. I am keen to see, after many months, some movement on this bill. Rest assured, the Greens will be out there in the community talking about our alternative vision in terms of dealing with cost of living, and we hope that the government will take up some of those ideas when it comes to crafting their next budget.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (17:17): I must say I am gobsmacked by the Liberals, but I will address that later on, and I am quite surprised by the Greens as well in their attitude. I rise to speak on the budget measures bill and the amendments I am putting forward today.

Since May last year, the government has proudly flooded social media boasting about how much it cares for young people and first-home buyers. We are about to put that to the test. Over seven posts, at last count, from the Premier claim the First Home Owner Grant and stamp duty changes are 'one of the biggest shake-ups and tax reductions we've seen in our state's history'. Let's fact-check that—and for the benefit of the Hon. Robert Simms, who seems to think it is going to blow a hole in the budget.

The government's own modelling shows its policy only produces a net loss for its kitty of just $2 million in stamp duty revenue in 2024-25, increasing to only $4 million thereafter. So, with the average property price in the metropolitan area now sitting at $785,000, that translates to just over 50 properties being stamp duty exempt this financial year and only 108 properties per year after—108. That is barely a drop in the ocean and hardly the grand gesture the government claims it to be. After all, it is totally intoxicated with this tax, which it was estimated would bring in $1.092 billion in the 2023-24 financial year but has come in at almost $300 million over budget, at $1.383 billion.

They are totally drunk on this tax, and they are in no hurry to get sober. To put it in perspective, the government spends more in total on frivolous promotions like the appearance of Sam Smith before 300 influencers at The Cube or reduced hire fees for Katy Perry concerts than it does on this revolutionary housing policy.

We know many new developments, particularly in the northern suburbs, do not even have proper infrastructure like sewerage and water systems. New residents there are forced to rely on daily sewage trucks, and we have been told the fix will not be ready until 2027 or 2028. I suspect the same is going to apply to those new developments in the southern suburbs that were announced by the planning minister, the Hon. Nick Champion, just over a week ago.

Is this really the kind of housing solution the government is pushing? Let's not forget these incentives for first-home buyers only apply to new builds or vacant land. If you want to buy an established home, one with character and one that is closer to essential services, you are out of luck. But why should those wanting to purchase an existing home be excluded? Our amendment is simple and does two key things: it expands the stamp duty exemption and the first-home owner's grant to include all first-home purchasers, whether it is a new build, vacant land or an existing home. This will give buyers more flexibility and provides everyone with a fair chance at home ownership, not just a select few.

I guess some of the reasoning for this for new builds is to keep the construction industry cranking along. However, as we can see, the construction industry is actually grinding to a halt because of several factors, including the lack of infrastructure, the availability of trades and supply issues, which include land. So even that is causing delays in people being able to get their first home. As I said, this will give buyers more flexibility and provides everyone with a fair chance at home ownership, not just a select few.

Let's be clear that providing a stamp duty exemption is really just an artificial propping up of the market. It does not actually reduce new housing costs. In fact, it may even inflate them as developers simply add the exemption into the price of the home. But, if the government insists on pursuing this, then it should at least do it for all first-home buyers, not just those looking at new builds or vacant land kilometres away from the CBD.

The current policy does nothing to put downward pressure on house prices. All it does is force young people to the fringes of metro Adelaide, perhaps even the regions, where public transport infrastructure and other public amenities are severely lacking. I do not know how many times either I or the Hon. Mr Simms have to say in this place that the government is just ignoring the white elephant in the state in the transport area, which is rail transport.

Again, when I was in the regions last week, where I was having discussions with civic leaders and others, they emphasised the problems that they are experiencing with adequate transport not just in their regions but also from there into Adelaide. Of course, the old chestnut came up again: 'What about rail?' and, 'Why haven't we got passenger rail?'

I had to shake my head in disgust while I was travelling through the Burra region, going alongside a rail line that had trees, shrubs and everything growing through it. It was in a mess, because the Labor government has failed to enforce the contracts on the rail network, particularly in the regions and, as a consequence, they have fallen into disrepair. These lines should have been kept in a state where they could have been reactivated within two weeks—never happened, they did not enforce it, nothing.

This government is not interested in rail at all. It is only interested in road. Even in comments recently by the transport minister, that is all they are interested in—cars, even coming down the freeway. He said, 'We're only interested in cars. Cars get people to destinations quicker.' He is only talking about the metropolitan area. Again, they forget about the people in the regions. There are people in the regions who want to get to Adelaide, want to get here as quickly as they can but at an affordable rate, rather than having to expend half a tank of petrol to see doctors or go to other important appointments in the city.

As I said, it was disappointing to see our regional rail networks in such a state when you can go anywhere else in this country, anywhere else in the world, and their economies have rail as one of the foundations. In fact, they work on it extensively to ensure that it is efficient, both for passengers and rail.

I will go back to the story of when I was in Spain two or three years ago and I met with Talgo and Renfe, the train operator. Spain was in a similar position to that in which we find ourselves today, where they had an inefficient and poor rail network and at the same time they were experiencing an increase in the cost of housing affordability. That was a real issue for the Spanish government and the people of Spain. They could not afford to buy houses in Madrid, Seville or elsewhere—it was just too expensive. But they had Talgo with their innovative rail technology, where they could change gauges because of the technology they have, the rolling, etc., and exceptionally fast trains made by Renfe.

Once they upgraded their rail lines it opened up the regions to quick, efficient and cheap transport, and people started to move into the regions because they could afford to buy a house. That could happen right here, but the government will not do that. Instead it is haphazardly opening up green spaces in the north of Adelaide, around Angle Vale and down south around Sellicks, where they do not even have the infrastructure, and it will take years before housing is even ready for them. It is a government that really is not interested in transport. They can hail everything they want about bringing it back into public hands, but we have one of the worst rail networks in the world. Apart from the metropolitan area, I would put it in the Third World category, and they should be ashamed of it.

It does not reduce new housing costs. In fact, it may even inflate them, as developers will just add to the exemption in the price of the home. If the government insists on pursuing this, it should at least do it for all homebuyers, not just those looking at the new builds. The current policy does nothing to put downward pressure on house prices; all it does is force young people into the fringes of metro Adelaide, where there is a lack in transport and infrastructure. It does not address the demand issue, which is largely driven by excessive immigration and foreign and interstate investment. Just remember federal Labor's policy of last year, where almost 600,000 immigrants were allowed into Australia. I believe something like 60,000 or 70,000 of them came into South Australia, adding to the pressure on housing in this state.

Stamp duty is essentially a tax on mobility. It discourages people from moving, whether they are first-home buyers, retirees looking to downsize or families needing more space. The elderly, in particular, are stuck. Many are living in homes that are too large, but the cost of downsizing, with the burden of stamp duty on their next property, is prohibitive. It is extraordinary.

For instance, if somebody were to sell their property now and it had appreciated in value from the time they first bought it—say they might have paid $200,000 or $300,000 several years ago and now it has appreciated to the point where it is worth more than $1.6 million—they want to leave, they are empty-nesters, the kids are gone, and they are looking at buying another place. What can they buy, what is left, for anything under $1 million, perhaps even more? And what happens? The state government benefits in stamp duty by more than $100,000.

If I were a retiree contemplating downsizing, I would think, 'Why would I want to give the government more than $100,000 in stamp duty? I might as well stay where I am.' There is no incentive. If the government considered providing them with stamp duty relief, we could free up larger homes and improve housing availability for young families.

While we are on the topic of property sales, let us talk about the outrageous lodgement fees. On a $1 million home—and let us not forget where the price is at the moment, at nearly $800,000, so we are not far away from that in terms of the median price—buyers are forced to fork out close to $10,000 just to record a change of ownership on the government system. That is $10,000 for a click on a computer. This is an outrageous fee, and it is easily the highest of anywhere in the country. In some states it is only a few hundred dollars.

As I have said, this government for some reason seems to be intoxicated on taxes, particularly property taxes, and on imposing even more financial burdens on homebuyers and young homebuyers. This is an unnecessary charge, totally unnecessary, and they just continue to allow it to happen. It is outrageous. It is a ridiculous tax for what is essentially an administrative task that will only take a minute or two, if that.

Then there is the issue of new building standards. While the government touts stamp duty savings on new builds, these savings are quickly offset by the cost of complying with these new standards, leaving first-home buyers no better off. For example, what about this one: having to spend $10,000 or more to install a compulsory rainwater tank in all new builds. It is totally unnecessary. Remove it and there is a big saving right there for first-home owners. On the day the policy was announced—the housing policy, the road map, but it is more like a mud map at the moment—the Premier called it 'a great day', which it is for the government because it has fleeced the public with a spin policy that costs it hardly any money.

What about the quality of these new builds? We have all heard the horror stories. Late last year, I visited a large development where the owners had been fighting for four years to rectify serious defects that cause flooding every time it rains. Neither the builder, the developer, the council, the insurers or the Consumer and Business Services department had been willing to assist. The builder definitely will not help because, as it turns out, his liability insurance was fraudulent. Is this really the kind of housing stock the government is pushing young people into buying with its selective stamp duty exemptions?

I just need to also remind the government of the collapse of a number of builders in recent times and the mess that has left behind for some of these young people. Some people are actually living in a house that has not been completed and also still has problems. I even visited recently a retirement village where people had downsized and bought into this. It was quite expensive, this retirement village. I met with a particular block of residents of this new development at this large, expensive retirement village. Their problem is they bought the units on the ground floor of this retirement village block. They also had residents living on the top floor, but just to cut corners and save money the developer—the builder—decided not to have soundproofing on the floors between the two units, instead just the hollow timbers that are there.

So what happens every day, every night? They hear all the goings on, the clattering, the moving of furniture, everything upstairs, in their units. The developer and the builder do not know what to do, because it is going to be an expensive fix, and they are just trying to buck-pass the whole thing.

But what about these retirees? They are now going to be left with units that, when it is ready for them to move on, they will not be able to sell without having to make a disclosure to potential buyers that there are problems here. Who wants to buy a unit in a residential village—and it is a beautiful residential village—where all you are going to get is noise and clatter constantly, clatter of people with their heels and everything while they are walking upstairs? It is annoying. I have heard it myself, and I think, 'There's no way I'm going to buy here.' Again, it just pinpoints the quality of construction in even expensive developments, like in retirement villages.

This policy as it stands is just more showboating from the government. If it truly wants to help first-home buyers, it needs to go further. Our amendment ensures all first-home buyers, whether looking at new builds or established homes, get the support they deserve. I gather already from the second reading speeches here that the only member in this place who seems to be going to be supportive of my amendment is the Hon. Sarah Game. I am going to thank her for her support on this issue. She has recognised the need for a fairer, more inclusive approach, and I appreciate the backing as we push for these amendments.

I am going to leave my last blast over the bows for the opposition. What an incredible, gobsmacking piece of hypocrisy I have heard today from the Hon. Heidi Girolamo, saying that they were not going to now support my amendment which actually was something their own former leader David Speirs announced as being a 2026 election commitment. Suddenly the Libs have backflipped on an election commitment made by their former opposition leader. Shame on the Liberals and shame on the opposition leader, Vincent Tarzia.

I am going to make it quite clear here that, even though it is clear I am not going to get up on my amendments, I am going to divide on every one of them just so that young people out in the community, young home owners who are struggling to come up with deposits, struggling to find affordable housing, will know exactly where members in this parliament really stand when it comes to housing affordability for first-home owners and young families. They will know that, and I will make sure that they know that and say, 'Well, here you go. This is what the Liberals think now, when last year they were all happy to go to an election with this commitment about making stamp duty exempt for all first-home buyers.' Now they have suddenly changed that—

The Hon. H.M. Girolamo interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: They are changing their policy to suit themselves, Mr President. The same with the Premier when he comes out with these big ticket announcements about what they are doing for young first-home buyers with their exemptions, when it is quite clear that it is a trickle. It would hardly even cause a ripple in the Hon. Stephen Mullighan's budget, so they are not really serious. Let's make sure that this housing policy provides all first-home buyers with a fair chance of ownership.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. I.K. Hunter.