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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 6 Hansard (23 May) . . Page.. 1605 ..

MS CARNELL (continuing):

It is true that we do have 2,800 fewer staff now, and what does that produce? You do not need to be Einstein to work it out. It produces a lower superannuation liability. And guess what, Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker? What happened was that a larger number of those than even we expected were people with higher potential long-term entitlements. If that happens, guess what happens? Your unfunded liability comes down It did not just happen. It was not just figures on a bit of paper. It was five years of hard work, reducing our expenditure, reducing our staff numbers, and bringing down our unfunded superannuation liability.

If those opposite are suggesting that somehow the unfunded liability at this stage is not a problem, I would ask them to turn to Budget Paper No 3, page 118. If we do nothing, which seems to be what Mr Quinlan suggests, if we do not put money into the unfunded superannuation problem, what will happen is that over time $137 million, or in that vicinity-I think Mr Humphries used that figure in his speech-will be required for payouts. So, Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, the problem is not solved. Certainly, the amount of unfunded liability has come down because we reduced staff, and because those staff tended to come from particular parts of our work force we achieved a greater reduction in our unfunded liability.

There was another interesting point that Mr Quinlan made in arguing about the $344 million operating loss. That particular operating loss was accepted by the Auditor-General as being the real operating loss.

Mr Quinlan: Talk to him.

Mr Moore: He signed it.

Mr Quinlan: They were back-cast figures.

Mr Moore: All right-

MR TEMPORARY DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Mr Moore and the shadow Treasurer will come to order!

MS CARNELL: If the Auditor-General believed that that figure was wrong, why in heaven's name did he not raise that issue and qualify the accounts? That is what he would do. He did not. Why didn't he? Because he does not disagree with the figure. If those opposite are suggesting that the Auditor-General somehow got it wrong or signed off on a report that he did not really mean, I would ask them to make that allegation. I am sure the Auditor-General would not agree that he had made a mistake or signed off on a report that was somehow wrong. The fact is that the Auditor-General has accepted those figures.

If you remember, it was not that long ago that the Auditor-General brought down a report-I think it was probably last year's annual report-in which he suggested that if the ACT did not do something about our unfunded superannuation liability, if it did not do something about our expenditure or bring down our operating loss, the quality of life in the ACT would be affected in the future. They were not my words, they were the Auditor-General's words. So there is no view at all that the Auditor-General did not

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