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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 7 Hansard (24 June) . . Page.. 2008 ..

MRS CARNELL (continuing):

The Government has undertaken, along the lines of recommendation 4 by the Estimates Committee, to come back with an appropriate superannuation scheme for new entrants to the ACT Public Service, but Mr Berry is saying that that new scheme must be at least as good as the old schemes.

Mr Speaker, what are those opposite really about here? Mr Whitecross indicated that the emerging cost is for the old scheme, but actually it is for both the PSS and the CSS. The issue that we have to address is not just the emerging liabilities. As Mr Whitecross rightly said, it is also our base. We simply do have to get in there and address the base situation. We all know that. But have those opposite raised one capacity to do that? When they were in government last time they had $180m in cash reserves to mess around with. They did not use it for unfunded superannuation liability, but they had that money. If by any horrible chance they get back into government next time, there is no money in cash reserves, Mr Speaker; so what are they going to use? They have already indicated to us that there are no areas in the budget where they actually plan to save any money. They are not going to save money in the wage bill and they are not going to save money in accommodation. That rules out the top two areas. They have not indicated that they are planning to increase taxes anywhere, but they must be going to, Mr Speaker.

How are they going to address this issue if, as Mr Berry says, any new scheme must be at least as generous as the two old schemes? Also, those opposite do not want to sell any assets. They have already indicated that. They want to maintain our asset base, they do not want to save any money, they have not told us about the new taxes they plan to put in place, and any new scheme must be at least as generous as the old schemes. Now, I have to tell you; there are rabbits and there are hats, but there is no rabbit that big.

MR WHITECROSS (Leader of the Opposition) (5.32): Mr Speaker, I will be brief. Labor's record is a simple one. In 1991 we negotiated with the unions a new superannuation scheme which reduced the emerging costs to 11 per cent of salaries. We did that in 1991. That was our first contribution to addressing this issue. Over the four years of Labor government we contributed $160m to meeting the cost of superannuation. It was not the full cost, Mr Speaker, but it was a contribution - $160m. In the three years of the Liberal Government it has contributed $40m. Labor $160m; Liberals $40m. Labor negotiated a better scheme for government workers which reduced the costs as a percentage of salaries to 11 per cent. The problem we have is the problem of not funding accruing costs, of not paying our way on a year-by-year basis, Mr Speaker. This Government is not interested in addressing that problem. Their only solution is to come up with a new scheme which will reduce benefits for new employees to the superannuation guarantee level.

Mr Speaker, Labor's record is clear. We produced a good scheme in 1991 which reduced the emerging costs. It was done in consultation with the unions for the benefit of all - for the benefit of taxpayers and for the benefit of employees. Labor did that. Labor paid in $160m in our time in government. This Government has paid in $40m. I think the record is pretty clear as to who has been taking this issue seriously and who has not. For Mrs Carnell to lecture us, or for Mr Osborne to lecture us, flies in the face of the facts. The fact is, Mr Speaker, that the Labor Party understood this problem and sought to do something about it. The Liberals and Mr Osborne have been doing nothing about it.

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