Page 3913 - Week 15 - Tuesday, 15 December 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Detail Stage
Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.
Clause 5
MR CORNWELL (8.57): I move:
Page 2, paragraph (c), line 16, omit the paragraph.
This amendment will simply omit the proposal to increase to $1.5m from $500,000 the amount of money the Commissioner for Housing may approve without seeking the approval of the Minister. The reason I do this is very simple. This morning my office contacted Mr Connolly's office to advise him that I would be raising questions in relation to this matter and one other and that I would be seeking a more reasonable explanation of what we discovered in the explanatory memorandum about the increase from $500,000 to $1.5m. As far as the Liberal Party is concerned, we have not had that reasonable explanation.
Mr Connolly said in his comments that no corrupt practice was suggested, and indeed the Liberal Party would not for one moment imply that there was any suggestion of any corrupt practice by any public servant in this matter. I want to make that perfectly clear. Mr Connolly rightly said that there was a reasonable point of caution in relation to how much money could be allocated to any public servant in terms of their approval, without any suggestion of impropriety. We have not, however, been convinced by the Minister, either in his explanatory memorandum or in his comments tonight, following my request this morning for further information, that the amount the Commissioner for Housing can approve should be increased from $500,000 to $1.5m. Therefore, we find ourselves in the position where we must move an amendment to delete the Government's proposed amendment to the Housing Assistance Act.
MR KAINE (Leader of the Opposition) (9.01): As I indicated earlier, I support Mr Cornwell in this amendment. It is not a question of corruption or bad business practice or anything else. The simple fact is that the Minister has not justified why $1.5m is a good figure. He indicated that other officers of fairly senior status in his organisation do not have the authority to approve contracts of this dimension. He has not convinced me that the Commissioner for Housing should have it.
He said that he did not think the Minister ought to be involved in a contract to buy houses. I agree with him, but that is not what this does. This does not give him first-hand involvement in the contract, but it is partly justified on the basis that the Housing Commissioner is now getting not into the purchase of housing but into the redevelopment of housing. That is a different matter altogether. Once you get into the redevelopment of housing you can get into some very big contracts. But that is not the point, I do not think. I am not arguing on the basis that the Housing Commissioner should not get into that kind of contract. If it is perceived to be in the public interest that that is a good way of providing housing and the housing that is being purchased is priced reasonably, is well located and the like, there is no argument against it.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .