Page 2395 - Week 08 - Tuesday, 28 June 2005
a crack. The government should continue to work on it. I do not see the estimates committee report as offering much in terms of constructive suggestions in relation to that. We will work on it.
I have to say that, in one regard, I do share Mr Mulcahy’s concerns in relation to GFS measurement, particularly the treatment of land sales. I understand that rating agencies are contemplating excluding land sales from their measurement altogether. The ACT is in a unique situation where we own the land. Most states and territories don’t own it; so transactions take place between owners and sellers and the government is not involved. We do earn revenue—we have since self-government—from the sale of land.
If that is taken out of the sum we may have to have animated discussions to maintain our credit rating, because of the arbitrariness of the process. If it changes to exclude the land sales, which can be predicted to go on into the future, then the territory itself may have a difficulty there. I think we should recognise that that is the case.
Proposed expenditure agreed to.
Proposed expenditure—Part 1.7—Central Financing Unit, $214,000 (capital injection) and $12,939,000 (payments on behalf of the territory) totalling$13,153,000—agreed to.
Proposed expenditure—Part 1.8—Home Loan Portfolio, nil expenditure.
DR FOSKEY (Molonglo) (5.44): I want to speak briefly on this item.
Mr Quinlan: You always say that.
DR FOSKEY: I always do. ACT Shelter’s budget submission called on the government to review the ACT’s home loan portfolio annually rather than biannually and for available funds to be released for public and community housing in addition to the growth from capital funds. In support of this recommendation, ACT Shelter cites the KPMG recommendation that the performance of the home loan portfolio be closely monitored and that there is a potential for there to be $2 million to $5 million available annually for social housing stock.
I understand that the government currently proposes to review the portfolio biannually and does not appear to have reviewed this position as part of the budget process. In light of the serious undersupply of social housing, I urge the government to give serious consideration to the suggestion of an annual rather than a biannual review of the portfolio.
MR SESELJA (Molonglo) (5.45): I will speak briefly on this. Mr Quinlan can take me at my word. I want to raise a couple of issues. I am concerned that the budgeted result for the financial years 2004-05 and 2005-06 may not be delivered. We know that this government has shown a tendency to be unable to deliver on a projected outcome, generally overspent, and it is only windfall revenues that have ensured the deficiencies that this Labor Party and this Labor government have with regard to economic management have been hidden from view.