Page 3202 - Week 10 - Thursday, 15 August 2013
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MR ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Mr Doszpot): Thank you, Mr Smyth. I call Mr Barr.
MR BARR (Molonglo-Deputy Chief Minister, Treasurer, Minister for Economic Development, Minister for Sport and Recreation, Minister for Tourism and Events and Minister for Community Services) (9.16), in reply: Yes, there is some confusion; we are, in fact, debating the Appropriation (Office of the Legislative Assembly) Bill. I indicate the government’s support for the passage of this legislation. We look forward to the ongoing scrutiny that the passage of this legislation will provide to the activities of the executive. I commend this bill to the Assembly, and we will move on to debate the First Home Owner Grant Amendment Bill.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill agreed to in principle.
Leave granted to dispense with the detail stage.
Bill agreed to.
Estimates 2013-2014—Select Committee
Government response
Debate resumed from 13 August 2013, on motion by Mr Barr:
That the Assembly take note of the paper.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
First Home Owner Grant Amendment Bill 2013
Debate resumed from 6 June 2013, on motion by Mr Barr:
That this bill be agreed to in principle.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (9.18): Members cannot dispute my enthusiasm to discuss this topic this evening. The observation I simply want to make on the first home owner grant is that, whilst I will be supporting the bill, I think there is work to be done on this policy. It is a situation where the intent of the scheme has perhaps not delivered in all cases the outcome that was intended. I think it warrants some further research.
In what the bill proposes, I think there are some positive elements where it does propose to wind back the scheme so that it is not provided to established houses and instead focuses on new or largely renovated houses. Of course, there is the concern that this scheme has done nothing more than increase the cost of housing—that it has been, to some extent, a waste of public money and has not achieved the objective intended. This is an area that warrants further consideration; I will be continuing to look at this policy area in some detail.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video