Page 2360 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 29 August 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I changed the wording in my speech from saying that I did not have any hope that things would change. That is not true; I would not be here today if I did not have hope that things would change. That is one of the reasons why I, like all members here, am an MLA—because we do hope and believe we can effect change. So while I do not resile from the content of my speech, I do apologise for the manner in which it was delivered if it caused any offence.
Mr Stanhope: Thank you, Dr Foskey.
MR MULCAHY (Molonglo) (4.40): I do not often heartily agree with the Chief Minister on a whole lot of issues, but my reaction was identical, in that I thought a line was crossed in those remarks. Whilst I note that an apology has been offered, I think the extreme sentence contained in that speech was so extraordinary that I look forward to sharing it with my colleagues who may not have heard those remarks.
I heard the line about the territory government “investing in companies that murder indigenous people”. Whatever differences I have with the Chief Minister, I think that in that area he professes to have a fair bit of commitment to improving their lot. I heard other statements made about guns that, if said outside this Assembly, would land one in substantial litigation. This extreme approach worries me. It worries me that any legislator would come up with this sort of approach to the investments of our public servants in the territory.
You can have ethical investments, but I find extraordinary this extremist approach of going to investment houses and listing all of the companies that Dr Foskey and her team disapprove of and then expecting the territory government to be involved in some global campaign to rid the world of every problem. Do we not put money in a bank because the bank might have lent to somebody who conducted inappropriate business? Where do we go in life? They were extraordinary words. I hope that they receive the attention and criticism they deserve from outside this place. On this occasion I have to endorse the sentiment of the Chief Minister.
Proposed expenditure agreed to.
Proposed expenditure—Part 1.7 Home Loan Portfolio—nil expenditure.
MR MULCAHY (Molonglo) (4.43): I do not have too many words on this item. Obviously, an appropriation of nil is always music to the ears of those of us who like to keep outlays to a minimum. I will note a couple of points about the home loan portfolio. We noticed a 39 per cent increase in administrative costs per home loan for this portfolio, going from $837 per loan in 2005-06 to $1,162 per loan in 2006-07. In 2007-08, the target is another increase of 33 per cent to $1,548 per loan. This amounts to an increase of 85 per cent in just two years—the time since this figure was first reported.
The increasing cost per loan is due to the fact that the portfolio is now winding down and is currently in a residual phase, with fewer and fewer loans being administered, while administrative costs remain static. As this area of government is further wound down, the administrative costs per home loan will continue to increase. The Treasurer acknowledged this fact in answer to a question on notice.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .