Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
 Download Full Day's HansardDownload Full Day's Hansard    View Or Save XMLView/Save XML

Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Thursday, 1 April 1965

Senator PALTRIDGE (Western Australia) (Minister for Defence) . - I think that Senator Wright took the point that the amendment, as drafted, did in fact refer to Commonwealth and State authorities, and that it could cover a number of them. Of course, all of them are excluded from the operations of the proposed Act. In presenting the amendment Senator Bishop laid particular stress upon war service homes. Because of the way in which the amendment is phrased, I think it would be a mistake to believe that if it were accepted it would have application exclusively to war service homes. It would not. It would go further than that. The point I make, as I have tried to emphasise in the debate, is that the Bill is directed to two particular objectives. They are, first, the obviating of the need to raise second mortgage money, and secondly, the attraction of private investment to housing finance. The amendment as submitted by the Opposition cuts right across those two objectives. It refers to second mortgage finance which, with the exception of a very limited area, is excluded from the Bill, and because it refers to Government financed homes, it seeks to carry into the Bill something with which the Bill has nothing at all to do. For this reason the Government rejects the amendment. In fact, a similar amendment was rejected in another place.

I have spoken only briefly on this matter. I hope that the brevity of my remarks will not be taken as an indication that consideration has not been given to the amendment. I do not want to reiterate the remarks that I made two or three times last night. I merely want to indicate again that the amendment is completely out of sympathy with the Bill itself. The Bill is not intended to be addressed to all aspects of housing. Indeed, in respect of Commonwealth homes finance, the Minister in another place made it quite clear that he was currently conducting a review of war service homes finance. Other speakers in another place referred to the fact that any amendment that was sought in respect of war service homes should more appropriately be made when the war service homes legislation is being considered. There are other aspects of housing in addition to war service homes which, the Minister has indicated, are also under review. The Bill is for aspecific purpose, as I have indicated, and the amendment has reference to purposes which are not related to the Bill. It is therefore not accepted.

In regard to the particular query that Senator Bishop raised in respect of the provision of finance in South Australia, I am sure that if he looks at the definition of an " insurable loan " it will become quite obvious that the transaction to which he referred is excluded from the operations of this legislation.

Question put -

That the words proposed to be added (Senator Bishop's amendment) be added.

Suggest corrections