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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 06 Hansard (Tuesday, 22 June 2004) . . Page.. 2277 ..

First home buyers make up approximately three per cent of the market. This scheme for first home buyers is to be implemented in July of this year, in a couple of weeks. The period between the budget coming down in May and this scheme for first home buyers coming into effect in July is three months. The suggestion in the committee report that, because three per cent of the home buyers are going to wait for three months, they are going to cause a massive slump in the housing market is really quite laughable, Mr Speaker. I should have said at the time that I had an issue with that. I did raise it with the committee but I did not have anything put in the report. I apologise to the Assembly for not having my point made in the report itself, but I do think that it is quite laughable and I am quite sure that the Treasurer will deal with it as he sees appropriate.

The next issue that I want to talk about, Mr Speaker, is dealt with paragraphs 5.17 and 5.18 and recommendation 14. It concerns the use of the term “economic cycle”. The committee recommends that the government resist using the term “economic cycle” without providing a clear definition of the term. Mr Speaker, the Treasurer was asked for a definition and he gave a definition. I reckon that Mr Smyth and some members of the committee did not understand the definition. Just because people on the committee do not understand economic terminology does not mean that it cannot be used.

I turn to recommendations 44 and 45, concerning the rehabilitation and independent living unit. Members will note that paragraph 11.11 states that two members of the committee, Mr Hargreaves and Ms MacDonald, disagreed with recommendations 44 and 45. It is up to Minister Corbell to speak about this matter in detail, but I have issues with saying that RILU should not be relocated unless it is proven that it does not compromise the outcomes for rehabilitation patients. Obviously, the health department and the Minister for Health need to find compromises at times. While it may not be the ideal situation in everybody’s opinion, it is certainly a job that the Minister for Health is required to do and it is not up to the Assembly to micromanage the issue of health.

I had issues with this recommendation, as did Mr Hargreaves. I do not know whether Mr Hargreaves will be talking about this issue any further. There is a follow-up recommendation about informing the Assembly if RILU is to be moved. Mr Hargreaves pointed out, quite accurately, that this Assembly is coming to the end of its life and in all probability we will not actually be here to be reported to, so it is a bit of a ridiculous notion to put that in a recommendation.

The last recommendation that I want to talk about, Mr Speaker, is the best one, that is, recommendation 57, which states that the committee recommends that the Appropriation Bill 2004-2005 be passed. I am pleased that this recommendation went in without any stipulations being put on it, without any add-ons, without the addition of a clause saying that, before the bill can be passed, the government needs to take out something or that something does not fit in the general plan or scheme for the world of some members. I am very happy that the report recommends that the bill be passed.

Mr Speaker, it looks like I am going to be relatively brief today, having said that I would be—

Mr Hargreaves: You always are.

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