Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 5 Hansard (11 May) . . Page.. 1462 ..

MS CARNELL (continuing):

shirt tails of the Commonwealth situation or that in New South Wales, depending on the day. Mr Speaker, it is really interesting to note that across Australia employment has grown only by 3 per cent, but by 5.4 per cent in the ACT, so nearly double for the ACT.

Mr Quinlan: I take a point of order, Mr Speaker, in relation to the answer that the Chief Minister is delivering. She seems to be implying that the result for the ACT is a function of what she has done and she is responsible for it. The original question was clearly relating to the impact of the federal budget. I would be prepared to accept that if Mrs Carnell were to stand up here and say that economic conditions in the ACT are more a function of the federal budget than they are of what she has done. But, if she is here to say that it is due to what she has done, then it is irrelevant to the question.

Mr Hird: I wish to speak to the point of order, Mr Speaker. Under the standing orders, ministers can answer any questions in the way they see fit.

MR SPEAKER: There is no point of order there.

MS CARNELL: Mr Quinlan has made the whole point here. The opposition cannot have it both ways. They cannot in one breath suggest that the federal budget and the federal government are doing a bad job and then in another say that the whole reason for the ACT's absolutely buoyant position is the federal government. Mr Speaker, that is exactly the reason and that is exactly the point I am making right now.

MR WOOD: My question is to the minister for housing. Minister, I have some queries arising from my question to you yesterday about gazumping. I note that our accounts of events differ a little. I have reconfirmed with my constituent his version of what happened. On Saturday, 29 April my constituent saw the following advertisement in the paper:

There is a price there. The house was to be open at 12.30 pm, but by 10.30 am my constituent was at the Dickson branch of a well-known real estate agent and had filled in a holding deposit form and paid $1,000 on the price quoted in the paper. The word "tender", or anything similar, was never mentioned. At 12.30 pm he went to the open house and was greeted by the agent on duty with, "Congratulations, you've got the house." The deal was done.

Two days later, on Monday-this is where I think the minister had information; I do not know whether he had the first bit of information-he was rung at about 4 pm and told that there had been another offer and that he should come in. The rules had changed for him. In what he now knows was a mistake, he filled in the final offer form that you referred to with an increased bid, believing it was a formality. The form had already been half filled in by the real estate agent, using information my constituent had supplied on the Saturday with his holding deposit. He now wishes he had refused to sign and had not been caught up with those new arrangements.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .