Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Canberra Times . . Page.. 1556 ..

could legitimately use, after you left government earlier this year; the whole deficit had to be borrowed. If we borrowed more money to put into the super fund, to invest, that would cost us money. It would also cost public servants money. It is simply like putting your home payments on Bankcard. It is not a good idea. It is bad financial management. The reason we brought down the budget that we did yesterday, which turns a $44m deficit this year into a $21m surplus in three years’ time, was so that in three years’ time, and from then on, we will be in a situation where we can put real money into superannuation, not money we borrowed to put in, and real money into debt repayment.

MS FOLLETT: I have a supplementary question, Mr Speaker. I am intrigued that Mrs Carnell's definition of real money apparently means slashing it by 65 per cent. I think that is a novelty. It is a novel approach. Mr Speaker, my supplementary question to Mrs Carnell is this: Will the paltry amount that you have put into superannuation - that is, $10.291m this year, $9m-odd next year and so on - compared to the $29m that was put in last year, meet the emerging costs of superannuation? Does that emerging cost include the superannuation for the 3,000 public servants who will be leaving the service because you have slashed their jobs?

MRS CARNELL: I cannot believe that the previous Chief Minister asked that question. If she knew anything about budgeting, and anything about the budget that she brought down last year, she would know that the increase in unfunded superannuation, under her last budget, was over $100m. It was over $100m in extra unfunded superannuation in just one year. The only way that we can turn that around is by having a budget that operates in surplus so that we can put money into it. Ms Follett left us in a situation where we did not have any money. We would have been in a position of borrowing to invest, like putting your home payments on Bankcard. How stupid is that? That is indicative of the previous Government's approach. Ms Follett has some very weird idea that 3,000 public servants are, all of a sudden, going to be made redundant.

Ms Follett: It was not my idea.

MRS CARNELL: Are you quoting from the Canberra Times, Ms Follett? Is that where you got the figure from?

Ms Follett: And others.

MRS CARNELL: Yes. Obviously, it must be right then! Now, 3,000 public servants over three years would be extremely difficult to fund out of the $30m that we put aside for redundancies over the next three years. It is $12m this year. Ms Follett spent $11.5m, I think, last year. There are some things that are extremely interesting here that I think this Assembly should know about. Ms Follett is talking about 3,000 public servants who are going to lose their jobs under our budget. Guess how many public servants were made redundant over the last three years. There were 1,019. At what cost? The cost was $37.7m, Ms Follett.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .