Page 3907 - Week 15 - Tuesday, 15 December 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I took the liberty this morning of advising the office of the Minister for Housing that I wished to raise two significant questions that are of concern to the Liberal Party, and, I believe, to other people in the community. I would therefore like to place on record those questions. Hopefully, at the end of the in-principle debate on the Bill, the Minister will be able to answer them for me. Those questions, if the Minister would - - -
Mr Connolly: I am sorry; I was just checking. I am aware from my staff of the questions.
MR CORNWELL: Thank you; I am delighted. You have good staff, Minister.
Mr Kaine: He was just checking to make sure that you are asking the same questions that you said you would.
MR CORNWELL: Indeed, I have every intention of doing that. The first question I ask is: Why does the Commissioner for Housing need a 200 per cent increase in the opportunity to approve funding, from $500,000 to $1.5m, without ministerial approval? All I have discovered in the tabling statement of the Minister is that the increase reflects commercial realities and amends the original limit of $0.5m set in 1987 to take account of inflation, escalating land costs and housing industry trends. It has been pointed out before - certainly, it has been pointed out by some of my colleagues - that approving something over $500,000 for the Minister should not involve an enormous amount of time. We would therefore like to understand why this approval has been given. It appears that there is no real justification for it, and I would welcome the Minister's comments.
The second point I wish to make is that I can find only two references in the 1992-93 budget concerning the extension of the HomeBuyer program through the use of an "off-budget funding mechanism". I would like to know what the details are of this really quite significant change. The Minister has disappeared again.
Mrs Grassby: He is getting information for you.
MR CORNWELL: The Minister is not in the chamber, Mrs Grassby. For example, is there a financial limit, and is it the $19m mentioned and listed in the budget overview on page 70? If not, why has it not been identified in his speech or, indeed, in his program?
We on this side of the house are not at all sure just what is proposed. We believe that, if we are going to go forward onto matters such as the Commissioner for Housing having an extension of 200 per cent on what he can approve without ministerial approval, and if we are going to have an off-budget funding mechanism which, it appears to us, is open ended, we do need some more information. The Liberal Party will be listening very carefully to the Minister's answer to these questions because on that answer will depend whether or not we move amendments to the Bill on the matters I have referred to.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .