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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 14 Hansard (9 December) . . Page.. 5039 ..

MR SMYTH (continuing):

human nature at work. How naive are we that we could not anticipate some parents who already own residential property applying for first home owners grants in the names of their children, some of whom are as young as one year. There will always be those who will seek to circumvent or abuse the provisions of legislation.

The logical consequence of this type of action is that legislation will be more complex than otherwise intended, in an attempt to preclude the actions of a small minority. In the case of this legislation I would have thought that the conditions that already exist-such as the condition that the person applying for a grant must be intending to use it as their main residence-would have ensured the proper policy outcomes. It is rather difficult to conceive of a situation where a six-year-old child could make all the necessary arrangements to own a new home, including signing contracts, dealing with builders, arranging for the removal of furniture and suchlike. Unfortunately, even with these conditions, we still have evidence of abuse. The action proposed by the amendments should overcome this abuse of the first home owners grant scheme.

We must also acknowledge that there must be some flexibility in any arrangements limiting access to these grants. As the Treasurer noted in his tabling comments, there may be quite legitimate situations in which a person under 18 years of age wishes to purchase a home and, if this was the first home that the person had owned, this would establish eligibility for such a grant. The flexibility that will be provided to the Commissioner for ACT Revenue under this bill should ensure appropriate outcomes when applications for grants are made by people who are under the age of 18.

I also note the implementation of the condition that applicants be required to live in the house for which the grant has been obtained for at least six months. This seems to be a reasonable proposal, and we will be supporting this amendment.

It appears that there was knowledge of this age loophole going back for some years. Indeed it appears that New South Wales acted some time ago to close off this age-related loophole. Other governments apparently had not been persuaded to act, despite the evidence of abuse through applications for grants being lodged in the names of children under the age of 18. I am surprised at the comments attributed to the Treasurer in the Canberra Times of 15 October 2003. It is reported that Mr Quinlan said that checks made by ACT authorities before approving the six-year-old's grant revealed the Commonwealth had no objection.

Am I correct in understanding that Mr Quinlan's position is that, if the potential abuse is okay with somebody else, it is okay with him? If that is a correct interpretation of the Treasurer's position, then I would have to say I am ashamed of him. But I am sure he will give his side of the story shortly.

Where is the integrity in this statement? Where is his interest in the proper implementation of public policy? Where is his concern about the proper use of public funds? Where is his interest in ensuring proper responsibility and effective accountability? We have a Treasurer who appears to have said: we have a situation where there is a wrong policy outcome; however, let us not be concerned about that because no-one else is interested. What is really surprising about the Treasurer's apparent position is that the people abusing the scheme were presumably rather wealthy

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