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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 2 Hansard (9 March) . . Page.. 447 ..

MR QUINLAN

less $12m that they are clawing back, plus some of the claw-back that we expected that is already incorporated in the budget. I think that at the end of the day the $55m per year will represent a genuine increase in revenue of about $45m. This brings us over the next three years to cash surpluses of $14m, $42m and $40m.

Operating losses were predicted at $90m, $81m and $72m, so we have a decrease in the operating loss predicted. These immediately improve to $45m, $36m and $27m. Certainly, we have to make reparation for the sins of the past in relation to our superannuation liability and plans have been put forward to employ ACTEW capital towards that superannuation liability, but to use ACTEW capital as capital and not as operating expenditure.

The heresy I would like to commit is that I would make some qualification on the use of accrual accounting by government as a be-all and end-all, and I want to make particular reference to depreciation. I believe that within government, where we have taken public money and expended it, there are some assets upon which we have spent the money. They are effectively sunk costs. They are sunk costs expended on infrastructure which is then fully maintained. At the same time we still depreciate those assets and we incorporate that level of depreciation into our operating statement and into our loss. I believe that that area should be reviewed, and I believe that that area should be reviewed now.

In the end we look not so much at just the accrual accounting results for the ACT. What we are looking at is our current and future cash needs, and you cannot tell me that at the end of the day the Government will not do that each time it does a budget now, although we are producing these very well-framed accrual accounting statements.

While I am up, I have a couple of other shadow portfolio responsibilities, so I will mention my wish list for the Treasurer to take note of because she did ask me about it. In gaming and racing, obviously we want viable racing industries, the gallops, the trots and the panlickers. We want them to be self-sustaining to the maximum. I believe we wish to create for them opportunities to be self-sustaining over continued subsidy.

Mr Humphries: What is a panlicker?

MR QUINLAN: A greyhound. The doggies. We do need to examine control over electronic gambling. There is an invasion occurring. We have to make a decision as to whether we take the money, or we have it happen to us and see the money go by, but we do need to ensure that wherever controls are necessary those controls can be applied.

In relation to poker machines, we await the finding of the Select Committee on Gambling. We also await an honest appraisal of the clubs' contribution to and role in the community. For many, clubs are the only non-threatening recreational site that they can access on a regular basis, and we need a little bit of lateral thinking on levelling the playing field with pubs and taverns. I do not necessarily believe that the only solution to the absence of a level playing field is the spread of poker machines. I do believe in the

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