Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2006 Week 1 Hansard (15 February) . . Page.. 139..
MR QUINLAN (continuing):
hearing took place at which Mr Mulcahy claimed on radio that I had this information. I am advised by Treasury that the first part of the discussion was on 29 November. There were discussions by Treasury officials with the actuary. At that discussion, the actuary indicated that estimated liabilities were likely to increase due to changes in the actuarial experiences, et cetera. The concern was coming together.
Superannuation was identified as a risk in the most general of terms by Treasury in discussions before that, I think maybe late October, but certainly the discussions that had any body to them at all took place between Treasury and the actuary on 29 November and then the actuary went away and did his or her work-I do not know which gender-and the date that the actuary first provided liability estimates to Treasury was 12 December 2005.
MRS BURKE: I have a supplementary question. I thank the minister for that answer. Therefore, minister, can you assure the Assembly that neither you nor any of your officials were aware of these changes when you appeared before PAC on 26 October?
MR QUINLAN: I do not know what the standing orders are, Mr Speaker, but I am not going to dignify that question with an answer unless I have to.
MR PRATT: My question is to the Chief Minister. Chief Minister, on a GFS basis the Mid year review shows that operating-
Ms MacDonald: What does that mean, Steve?
MR PRATT: That is government financial statistics; would you advise the Chief Minister of that definition, please? On a GFS basis, the Mid year review shows that operating deficits for the general government sector over the period 2004-05 to 2008-09 are expected to aggregate to a massive $1.744 billion. That amounts to a debt burden of $5,365 for every man, woman and child in the ACT. Chief Minister, how do you expect that debt to be paid off?
MR STANHOPE: I thank the member for the question. The question is identical to a question asked of the Treasurer, essentially; it has just been rephrased. I think the question was asked by Mr Mulcahy of the Treasurer earlier today, and the Treasurer went to some significant effort to explain the basis of GFS accounting, the adjustments that Standard & Poor's, Moody's and others have accepted are entirely reasonable and why it is that organisations like Standard & Poor's and Moody's accept that adjustments in relation to land sales revenue and superannuation revenue should be accounted for in any reading of the GFS.
It is the case that, over the five-year period as reported in the Mid year review, the GFS net operating balance goes from minus 356 in five years time to minus 332. But, as also reported in the Mid year review, over that same period land sales revenue should be adjusted to the tune of $174 million, $159.5 million, $165.5 million, $177.2 million and $194.2 million. The Mid year review then goes on to reveal that an adjustment should also be made to the GFS or superannuation revenue-a capital gains component of overall 7.5 per cent return on superannuation assets of $85.8 million, $85.8 million,