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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 7 Hansard (24 June) . . Page.. 1999 ..

MR MOORE (5.02): The bed tax estimate is $7m; but I would think, through your good work, Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, as chair of the Economic Development and Tourism Committee, and the good work of others in that area, we would see increased tourism and increased revenue well beyond the $7m that could be raised. Some of that revenue could be turned back into the tourism industry, particularly for advertising Canberra. I would not have a problem with that. I think the positive, proactive measures that I am presenting are important, side by side with the sorts of savings that the Chief Minister is intent on making. I do not mind giving credit where it is due when those savings are made.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Part 7 - ACT Superannuation Provision

Proposed expenditure - ACT Superannuation Provision, $16,544,000 (comprising payments on behalf of Territory, $16,544,000)

MR WHITECROSS (Leader of the Opposition) (5.03): I look forward to hearing Mr Moore's contribution on this. Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, I rise to speak in relation to the ACT superannuation provision appropriation unit to express some concerns about how this issue is being handled by the current Government. It is commonplace for people to express concern about the rate of growth of the unfunded liabilities for superannuation, standing at some $730m in 1996-97 and rising, and to talk about the actuarial studies showing how it would be a major liability for the people of Canberra. We have heard, in particular, lots of scaremongering about this issue coming from the Government and lots of agitation on the issue, most recently in the Estimates Committee hearings. There was a very long and detailed presentation from Treasury officials about the growth of this unfunded liability, the financing costs, and the employer costs of the superannuation liability.

For all this agitation, the Government's record on this issue is far from a glorious one. The first thing that those opposite did when they got into government was to stop funding superannuation liabilities. Under Labor we were making provision in our budgets for part of the accruing cost of superannuation; admittedly, not the whole cost, but we were making provision for part of the cost. The first thing the Carnell Government did when they came in, the first thing the Liberals did, was to stop making any provision. Then they have the gall, over the subsequent three years, to agitate about how terrible the emerging unfunded liability is. It would not be emerging quite so fast if the Government had stuck with Labor's policy of making provision for it.

The Labor Party put $71m into superannuation in 1991-92 and nearly $91m in 1992-93 and 1993-94. By contrast, the current Government has put in only $40m over three budgets. This is the gap between the rhetoric of the Liberal Government in relation to this issue and the reality. You have to ask, "Why?". If the Government is so concerned about this issue, why has it done nothing about making provision for the accruing cost of superannuation, whether partial or full, rather than just spouting lots of rhetoric about what a big problem it is?

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