FIRST HOME OWNERS GRANT

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (15:25): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the minister representing the Treasurer a question on the subject of the home savings grant.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I have been contacted by the father of a young woman who is appealing against a decision to seek to recover a $7,000 home savings grant. In his letter to me, Mr Rogers outlines the background to the matter and that his daughter is appealing that particular decision. There has been correspondence with the Crown Law Office. His daughter is extremely stressed and distressed about it. His daughter advised the Crown Solicitor's Office that he (her father) would be attending the appeal on 16 December of this year in order to protect her health at this important stage of her pregnancy. In his letter to me he states:

However, the Crown Solicitor's Office deliberately wrote a highly intimidating letter to my daughter suggesting that she would lose the Appeal and would have to repay not only the $7,000 grant but also considerable Crown Solicitor's legal fees. The objective of the letter was clearly to scare her and the Crown requested her, in this letter, to withdraw her Appeal. The Crown's intimidation worked because my daughter is now extremely distressed and is seeking medical attention as a result of this disgraceful and shameful intimidation. She has not however at this stage withdrawn her Appeal.

In evidence to the Budget and Finance Committee in November of last year, the chief executive of the justice department, Jerry Maguire, indicated that the costs of the Crown Law Office's involvement in various court cases were not recovered as part of any costs arrangements. He gave that as an example in relation to the case that involved the former CEO, Kate Lennon. Mr Rogers has also provided me with a copy of a letter he wrote on 20 November to Ms Helen Ward in the Crown Solicitor's Office, which because of its length I will only quote one part, and the government obviously has a copy of the letter. He states:

Regarding your letter, it is ironic that you are defending a decision of the Treasurer of South Australia to recover an amount of $7,000 from a young first home buyer allegedly breaking a rule associated with the First Home Owners Grant (albeit due to financial hardship), when that same Treasurer recently turned a blind eye, as Speaker of the House of Representatives, to one of his fellow Ministers, Grace Portolesi, refusing to repay a $7,000 business class taxpayer funded airfare for her daughter, after breaching Parliamentary travel rules (see article attached as Appendix 1). I guess this hypocritical Treasurer needs to recover the $7,000 from a financially strapped and pregnant young Teacher in order to pay for the $7,000 travel rort of his wealthy rule breaking fellow Minister.....It's a great society we live in isn't it Ms Ward?

As I said, the letter is three or four pages in length and I do not intend to quote all of the letter for the purposes of my two questions. My two questions are:

1. Is it correct that the government in this particular case has threatened to recover the considerable crown law costs from the appellant in the event that the decision goes with the government?

2. If so, is that consistent with government policy and has it been applied in all circumstances? In particular, is it consistent with the advice Mr Jerry Maguire gave the Budget and Finance Committee on 1 November 2010 in relation to crown law costs in the Kate Lennon court case?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Forests, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Tourism, Minister for the Status of Women) (15:29): I thank the member for his questions and will refer those to the Treasurer in another place and bring back a response. As I have made clear in this place earlier today when I read from the ministerial statement of the Premier Jay Weatherill in relation to minister Grace Portolesi, we know that she had inquired back in 2007 as to whether she was entitled to have her daughter as her nominated travel companion in lieu of her partner. I have put on the record that this was approved and then re-approved following the March 2010 election.

I have already made it quite clear that the approval was provided by officers of the parliament quite independent of the political process and that the process of approval by officers of the parliament was the same process that has been applied to a number of members on both sides of the chamber who have nominated their children as their nominated travel partners. So, to read out inaccurate information after that clarity, I think, is quite disingenuous but, as I said, I will take the question and refer it to the Treasurer in another place and bring back a response.