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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 5 Hansard (11 May) . . Page.. 1464 ..

MR SMYTH (continuing):

Housing agreed with this approach. The real estate agent went back to both offerers and asked them to complete the forms that we discussed yesterday and make their best and final offer. That was done. This is where it becomes what you might call a limited tender approach; there were two individuals after the same property, with different characteristics. That process was carried through. Again, the offers were similar. One said that they were borrowing 70 per cent, one said they were borrowing 60 per cent, but they had differing prices.

My understanding is that when your client realised that he had not achieved the purchase of the house he came back and made another offer over and above. But in terms of the process, they had filled out the forms and they were asked for their final and best price. To have accepted a price over and above that would have been gazumping.

MR WOOD: I have a supplementary question. The minister has roughly described what gazumping is. That is gazumping. I suggest to the minister that he go and get a definition from a real estate agent about gazumping.

MR SPEAKER: Is that the supplementary question?

MR WOOD: Mr Speaker, let me quote from the article I mentioned yesterday by Graham Downie, which has a photograph of Mr Humphries and is entitled "Lawyers look at gazumping". I quote Mr Moore of the Real Estate Institute. He says, "It's the vendor's decision whether to stick to the non-binding agreement," that is, the first agreement when the constituent paid $1,000. If the vendor-that is, ACT Housing-does not agree he is indulging in gazumping. My question to Mr Smyth is: will you go and check your definition of what gazumping is, it is as simple as that, because that is what has been happening?

MR SMYTH: Mr Speaker, I am happy to check again. Again, I went to people with real estate experience and checked the process. I am happy to check the definition of gazumping. I am told that it is not what you described.

MS TUCKER: My question is to Mr Humphries and is about the loss of funding to Care's consumer credit legal service, which is a unique service specialising in the complex area of the law affecting debtors, providing a solicitor to assist low-income people to negotiate the consolidation and settlement of their debts, a service which we know that legal aid and the Welfare Rights and Legal Centre are not able to pick up. Minister, are you aware that the specialist knowledge of the consumer credit legal service is relied upon to assist clients of services including, but not limited to, the Community Information and Referral Service, Samaritan House, the Welfare Rights and Legal Centre, the Smith Family, the Australian Consumers Association, Canberra Consumers and Consumers Telecommunications Network. There are also referrals from organisations such as the Canberra Times, Capital Collection Service, Care Housing, the Chief Minister's Department, the Department of Treasury and Infrastructure, the Domestic Violence Crisis Service, Mental Health Tuggeranong and the Salvation Army. Minister, to whom do you suggest they now refer their clients?

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