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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 12 Hansard (19 November) . . Page.. 3732 ..

MS TUCKER: That page sets out the general government sector budgetary situation in accrual terms. It indicates that the operating result in 1996-97 is to improve by $48m. That is your bottom line. Do you agree with that? A key factor in the improved budgetary situation is the claim that the Government is set to reduce expenses by $32m, if you look further down the page. Can the Treasurer please confirm that this is the case and explain to the Assembly how the Government plans to reduce expenses by $32m between 1995-96 and 1996-97?

MRS CARNELL: That is like asking about the meaning of life. For those who might not have been quite with it here, Ms Tucker has just asked how the ACT Government is planning to save money this year in comparison to last year, in every department, one by one and section by section.

MS TUCKER: Can I ask a supplementary question, then? I am assuming that that is what you are assuming that I am asking. Are you saying that this is about your general expenditure reduction and that it is about all your Government's business? If that is what you have just said, then I would ask: Is the Minister aware that on page 133 of the Chief Minister's annual report, which sets out the ACT Superannuation Provision Trust Account, a $90m increase in liabilities following an actuarial review was included as an abnormal item in accordance with normal accounting procedures? Is she aware that Budget Paper No. 3 explains that 1995-96 expenses for the Superannuation Provision Trust Account included a one-off addition of $90m? There was a question from Mr Kaine in the Estimates Committee about some discrepancy between the two figures for 1989 and 1991, but it is around $90m. Can the Minister explain why this one-off $90m increase was not included as an abnormal item in table 4.1.1, and can she confirm that, if it were, then territorial expenses for 1995-96 would actually be $1,551m, not $1,641m, meaning of course that the budgetary position has been misrepresented because the $90m was not put as an abnormal amount?

MRS CARNELL: The $90m abnormal amount for the increase in superannuation liabilities has been made very public the whole way through. It is in the accounts. We made it very clear in the Estimates Committee. I think Mr Kaine asked those sorts of questions. Yes, the unfunded superannuation liability went up significantly last year. I am sure that if I had had time and Ms Tucker had actually told me what the question was going to be, I could actually refer her to the page and the area. The $90m was an abnormal figure last year as a result of an actuarial look at our unfunded superannuation situation. The fact is, of course, that unfunded superannuation continues to increase each year at a significant level, as all those here would know. It was an issue that we spoke about at length in the Estimates Committee. I do not think anybody in this place would believe for a moment that that $90m was somehow kept secret.

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