Amanda Vanstone (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

Senator Evans is right: this is not seen as a particularly political issue. There is some merit in the proposal. The government has been considering issues in relation to other situations in which people might not be able to build within 12 months—for example, following Cyclone Larry where people on income support are unable to rebuild their homes within 12 months. I do not think Perth is necessarily the only place where it happens. I know some people who sold their house three years ago in order to build their dream home—it was not a downsize but an upsize—but, three years later, they have not moved in. Were they people who were in need of welfare, that would be a difficult situation. It relates to the capacity to get builders and a whole range of other matters.

In any event, while we agree that something might need to be done, you nonetheless have to get it right. We understand the principle of the amendment. It is our view that it is not comprehensive. It does not address all the issues. I have been told there are some consequential amendments. I have not been told what they are, just to save you asking me, but they are inevitable. I am further advised that, while your proposal addresses the impact of the assets test on sale proceeds, it does not align the homeowner definition, to ensure the person continues to be assessed as a homeowner until their home is finished. That is just one issue that has been raised. So, while the government are sympathetic to this proposal, we will not be supporting this amendment. But we will ensure that Senator Evans is personally apprised of our future consideration in relation to this matter.

I make the point that this government, which was described by Senator Bartlett, who is now back in the chamber, as being arrogant and taking its numbers for granted, recognises that someone is putting forward an idea that might be reasonable and is committing to having a look at it and getting it right. Senator Bartlett, I take the opportunity now that you are back in the chamber to point out just one aspect of your speech that I did not quite get. There was a portion which said that we are an arrogant government who do not listen to anybody, but it was within the context of the bill being debated, as a consequence of a range of opinions put to the government that a whole schedule has been removed. So I sort of got lost in that part of your speech. I am not inviting argument about it. I am just making the point that I think the conduct on this bill—in the removal of the schedule and in the agreement that Senator Evans has something that he wants to raise and which we will get back to him on—is an indication of quite the opposite; that is all.