HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-10-29 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

FIRST HOME OWNER GRANT (SPECIAL ELIGIBLE TRANSACTIONS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 15 October 2009. Page 3618.)

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (15:26): I rise on behalf of Liberal members to support the second reading of this legislation. Put simply, the commonwealth government announced the first homeowners boost on 14 October last year, and in the commonwealth budget on 12 May this year it was further extended. The boost occurred in two stages. We had the full boost (if you want to portray it that way) through until the end of September 2009, and then there was a half boost from 1 October 2009 to 31 December 2009; so, for the last three months of this particular period.

This legislation gives power to Revenue SA to administer the scheme. The legislation also seeks to clarify the commissioner's powers generally in relation to first homeowners' grants, particularly in relation to the exercise of discretion by the commissioner about varying periods of time and the expiration of the time period for the provision of various homeowners' grants.

In relation to this latter point, the second reading explanation argues—I assume they have had legal advice that it was arguable, which is a wonderful legal term—that the commissioner should consider whether to exercise a discretion only at the time that the first homeowner's grant application is made, whereas the commissioner had obviously been looking at these time extensions or variations when circumstances transpired in which the particular applicant sought either an extension or a variation in some way. I think that, rightly, as the second reading explanation points out, it is highly unlikely that, in most circumstances, applicants would know at the start that they are going to have any particular time problems.

This legislation proposes to amend the act retrospectively to give the commissioner flexibility to exercise these discretions at any time, whether or not there are good reasons for doing so. There are many occasions when members in this chamber and those in another place argue strongly against retrospective legislation. On this particular occasion the Liberal Party is prepared to accept the retrospective element of the legislation in the public's interest.

The only other point that I will make in relation to this is that we are debating this legislation essentially in November—we have a day or two left in October 2009—yet the first homeowners' boost was announced, as I said, almost 12 months ago, on 14 October 2008, and then it was extended on 12 May 2009. I think there is an obvious question as to why on earth, with just two months to go, we are now debating the legislation that gives legislative reinforcement to the whole scheme.

We are told that, buried in the middle of the second reading explanation, the boost has been provided on an administrative basis since its announcement, and this bill will provide legislative backing to the boost. That is indeed wonderful, but the issue really is: why is it that the government has left it until virtually November 2009, given that it has obviously known since October 2008 that there was to be some requirement for legislative backing for the implementation of the scheme?

I am not sure whether anyone takes or has taken a legal view that the provision of these grants on an administrative basis without legislative backing has in some way been challengeable, and I guess the interesting question is who might challenge it, given that it is obviously handing money to generally successful applicants who are deemed to be eligible. Nevertheless, it is an issue that the minister handling the bill on behalf of the government needs to answer.

It is unsatisfactory practice, frankly, that, with two months to go of a scheme that will have operated for 14 months, in essence we are being asked to validate retrospectively everything that has gone before us when there does not appear to have been a satisfactory explanation given as to why we should not have been considering this legislation late last year, early this year or, certainly at the very latest, immediately after the federal budget in May as part of the budget package of bills that we were required to consider at that time. With that brief contribution, as I said, the opposition supports the legislation, but we do seek from the minister a response to our specific question as to why we are now debating this legislation virtually at the death knell of the scheme.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Small Business) (15:32): I thank the Hon. Mr Lucas for his contribution to the debate. Perhaps it is best to deal with his question during the committee stage. I understand that other members have indicated their support for this bill but did not wish to speak, so I thank them for those indications of support. I look forward to the committee stage of the bill, where I will address the question asked by the Hon. Mr Lucas. I commend the bill to the council.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I will address the question the Hon. Mr Lucas asked about timing. The commonwealth approved the new scheme through cabinet back in October 2008. The relevant changes were approved in December 2008. At the same time, I am advised that Crown Law advice was received in relation to other matters that are covered in this bill in relation to those legal issues.

I am advised that, while that was being prepared in May 2009, the extension of the scheme was announced. That is why the process was delayed. I am advised that it was actually approved by cabinet back in July 2009, and it was then introduced into the parliament. It has taken the subsequent period of time to be received in the upper house. It was laid on the table and read a first time on 9 September 2009 in another place, but I am advised that it was approved back in July. So, that is basically the time frame.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I thank the minister for that outline. I will just indicate that it is an entirely unsatisfactory explanation, if I can put it that way. The simple fact is, as the minister has acknowledged, that the scheme was announced by the commonwealth in October, and the scheme has been administered, obviously—

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: It changed in May this year.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Yes, but even if it had not changed in May, there would need to have been some legislative backing for the scheme from October through to May. So, we have a situation where Treasury is saying that it needs legislative backing to administer this scheme. It knew that from October. We have a situation where, between October and May, it needed legislative backing and then, in May, the scheme was continued. So, clearly, it needed legislative backing. The point I am making is that here we are, almost in November 2009, and the government is asking us, in essence, to approve retrospectively the government's administration of the scheme. I think that is an entirely unsatisfactory set of circumstances.

I do not intend to delay the committee other than to say that I think the Treasurer has to accept responsibility for this. The buck stops at his desk. Perhaps his attention is being directed elsewhere and not in the areas where it ought to be, and that is in the proper administration of his portfolio. We should not have a set of circumstances where the parliament has asked—virtually at the end of the scheme—that we approve something that has been operating since October last year.

Clearly, the parliament would accept that it might be a reasonable period of time after October before we might be in a position to enact legislation. One can understand if it could not have been introduced before Christmas last year, but there certainly does not appear to be any excuse at all for the legislation not being introduced in the February-March 2009 session.

The government's partial response is that it wanted to take the opportunity to explore other issues which needed to be tidied up, and that is wonderful as well! If that was going to delay this matter, it could have been the subject of other legislation, as well. I accept that the minister here has no direct responsibility for what has been negligent oversight of the administration of the scheme and the implementation of the legislation. That responsibility rests with the Treasurer. It is just one further example of the lack of competent oversight of the portfolio by the Treasurer of the state, whose mind is obviously on other matters unrelated to his own portfolio.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (2 to 13) and title passed.

Third Reading

Bill read a third time and passed.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT