Page 5404 - Week 13 - Tuesday, 16 November 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
An important feature of this amendment is that, if the person failed to satisfy the conditions for a grant in another jurisdiction and then made appropriate reparation, the person could reapply for a grant in the ACT. That person benefits from acknowledging the problems that arose with the initial grant by being able to reapply in any jurisdiction.
I should note that we were told that the ACT is the last jurisdiction to implement this provision, and, in principle, of course, we would support the notion of having uniform programs across Australia.
The second amendment concerns a person who knowingly breaks the law. A person who applies for a grant and who provides false or misleading information in either the application process or in relation to the conditions that must be satisfied after receiving the grant is liable to be convicted of an offence. If a person is so convicted, that person will be unable to reapply for a grant in any jurisdiction. Again, this provision is clearly intended to apply across Australia and, in this instance, the ACT will be the second jurisdiction after Western Australia to put this provision in place.
I did raise the question of whether there was a national register of people who had been convicted of an offence with respect to first homeowner grant schemes. The advice I have received is that there are various national databases that can be accessed to check whether a person has been convicted of an offence in another jurisdiction. There is also a national online database with details of all grants that have been paid in Australia and details of grants that have been repaid and associated penalties and court action.
As well, the Revenue Office monitors relevant court decisions and also uses its own national revenue office network to exchange information on the first homeowner scheme.
The third amendment will place a ceiling or cap on the maximum value of a property for which a first homeowner grant can be sought. This amendment derives from the intergovernmental agreement on federal financial relations under which all jurisdictions agreed that caps should be introduced. This agreement specifies that a property value cap cannot be less than 1.4 times the median house price in the capital city of the jurisdiction. It is proposed that the cap in the ACT will be $750,000. That is the same cap for all other states except South Australia, where the cap is $575,000. I would suggest that that perhaps reflects the value of homes in that state.
If this bill is passed, the cap provisions will apply from 1 January 2011. I did raise the issue of how many applications would be subject to the cap. The advice that I received was that in most years there have been between one and 13 applicants for properties with a value over $750,000. In the most recent financial year, however, there have been 28 properties that exceeded $750,000, or 0.9 per cent of all applications.
I have to say that I had some concerns that imposing a cap might simply be a substantial increase in regulation for a small gain. On reflection, one can see the logic
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video