Page 3636 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 21 November 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
result of $46 million in additional taxation revenues, due almost entirely to additional levels of activity—$19.8 million in residential conveyance revenue, reflecting, as it does, the continuing strength of the residential housing market and the increased volume of transactions within the September quarter. Of course, we saw this in the June quarter as well. I suppose the June quarter was covered off in the question about the consolidated financial statement for the year, so we go from June to September to December.
Mrs Dunne: So what do you think about the Property Council’s credibility?
MR SPEAKER: Order, Mrs Dunne! You are on a warning, remember.
MR STANHOPE: We saw a very significant spike or pick-up in the June quarter. That has continued into the September quarter, about which we are particularly pleased—
Mr Mulcahy: So they were right?
MR STANHOPE: No, I will get to that. I will go to the detail.
Mr Smyth: He is right: it is very specific.
MR STANHOPE: No, it was a specific question that Mr Seselja asked, and it requires a specific answer. So $19.8 million of the $46 million was in residential conveyance revenue, reflecting the ongoing strength of the market; $11.8 million of the $46 million was in commercial conveyance revenue, resulting from several large commercial transactions that occurred during the September quarter; $7.4 million was in stamp duty applied to the transfer of shares and marketable securities, reflecting several large transactions assessed between July and September; $6.8 million was in general rates, due to timing—in other words, more people paid their rates in that quarter than we had anticipated; $10 million of the $55 million was because of a decrease in payment of recurrent grants, primarily due to $6.5 million in service purchase payments due to the timing of the on-passage of Australian and ACT government grants for non-government schools—in other words, the grants were not paid because of some administrative issues that required them to be rolled over into the next quarter; and $3 million for other grants.
So the $55 million change, almost exclusively, or at least half of it, is in relation to residential housing non-commercial transactions, some commercial transactions in relation to shares and marketable securities, and $6.8 million because of people paying their rates bill for the year ahead of what had been anticipated.
The position put by the Property Council of which I was critical was the allegation by the Property Council that, in relation to four specific major projects that were identified by the Property Council in its evidence, we had not taken any of those specific projects into account and that, as a result of those, we had underestimated. I can get the details of those; I can go back to the evidence. One of them was QEII, which in fact was factored in; it was in the budget. Another was section 63, which, because we are auctioning it, is essentially not relevant and will not appear in those
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .