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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 11 Hansard (22 October) . . Page.. 3916 ..

MR QUINLAN (continuing):

prevent abuse of that scheme. If it is found that not all eligibility criteria have been met, the grant is recovered and legal action is taken, where appropriate. Penalties can and have been applied in a number of cases. Since the commencement of the grant scheme, the ACT has conducted 1,548 investigations, resulting in 68 assessments of repayment of the grant and one successful prosecution in the ACT Magistrates Court.

In the ACT one case was identified of a first homeowner grant of $7,000 being paid to a person under the age of 18. In that case, appropriate checks were carried out on the application to ensure that all eligibility requirements were complied with, including the requirement that the applicant occupied the home as his or her principal place of residence before the grant was paid. South Australia and New South Wales acted unilaterally in 2001 to legislate a required eligibility age limit of 18 in South Australia and 16 in New South Wales respectively. Both jurisdictions included the discretion to exempt an application from that requirement. To maintain uniformity in the scheme, the ACT government, in consultation with the Commonwealth, the states and the Northern Territory, will be seeking urgent amendments to the legislation to restrict eligibility to persons over the age of 18. Amendments will be backdated to take effect from 14 October.

As I said earlier, some states have taken unilateral action in this area. I wrote to all Treasurers across Australia in an attempt to organise a meeting of senior treasury officers to ensure uniformity in the legislation and in the rules applying to the first home owners grant. From time to time there have been discussions about other dimensions of the first home owners grant-for example, why it should be paid for $1 million homes, why James Packer might not qualify for such a grant, whether it should be means-tested, and what the rules should be. The fortunate federal Treasurer-Treasurers need a lot of luck and Mr Costello certainly has had some-did a backflip in relation to who is responsible for what, which is typical of him. That matter should concern everyone in Australia, as that gentleman is aspiring to become the next Australian Prime Minister.

The Commonwealth set out the original conditions. In fact, discussions were held with the Commonwealth in an attempt to change those original conditions. The federal Treasurer refused to sanction those changes. I must confess that I was not aware of the full details of this scheme until these problems arose. Despite the fanfare of the Commonwealth to the introduction of the first home owners grant, it is actually being paid by the states. It is part of the GST agreement. Grants that are paid in the states are deducted from GST revenue that accrues to them. With that in mind, the states are now embarking on coordinated action to set conditions on a grant for which they are effectively paying. The ACT is leading other states in that area.

MR HARGREAVES: I ask a supplementary question. What is the ACT government doing to address this loophole in the legislation?

MR QUINLAN: After consultations with the other states this government will introduce uniform legislation, which is as it should be. As I intimated earlier, this oversight should have been accepted at all levels as an oversight. The Commonwealth, which pointed the finger of blame, did not accept it as an oversight. I place on the record that the framework for the system, which was established by the Commonwealth, will be fixed by the states.

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