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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 13 Hansard (2 December) . . Page.. 4297 ..

MR WHITECROSS (continuing):

But, of course, she has had the report since August, which is over three months ago, and therefore has had time to do it. But I note the comments that have been made in the Government's reply which indicate that the Government has made some progress in relation to agreeing with the Auditor-General on accounting standards. I welcome that.

It is interesting to note in that regard that the Government is leading something of a double life when it comes to the treatment of leases as part of the sale and lease-back or lease and lease-back arrangements. The Government continues to peddle the rhetoric that these are operating leases, while quietly agreeing with the Auditor-General to treat them as finance leases; but they will never admit in public that they are really finance leases because that would be an admission that they are really borrowings.

For instance, the Chief Minister in her statement today says that she believes that the Magistrates Court and Dame Pattie Menzies buildings transactions were operating leases, even though every single aspect of the buildings in question will be a cost to the Territory. The only contribution of Bankers Trust to these transactions is to pay an up-front amount for the right to collect the rent for the next 15 years. That is their only expense. Everything from insurance to maintenance to minor repairs - everything - is a cost to the Territory. So, how this can be described as an operating lease escapes me. It is nothing more than a finance lease, and the Auditor is perfectly right to argue that way. It is interesting to note that, notwithstanding the continued rhetoric for public consumption, they have quietly agreed to do it the Auditor's way.

There were a couple of other issues that were raised in the committee's report which I wanted to return to. Recommendation 1 related to municipal accounts. I must say that the Government's response to our recommendation that the Government continue to present a set of municipal accounts is rather disappointing. The gist of the response seems to be that, because comparisons would be difficult, we should not even try to produce a set of municipal accounts. I think that, to properly understand the ACT's accounts, it is very helpful for all people looking at ACT accounts that there be a separate set of municipal accounts produced.

I acknowledge, and I am sure any fair person would acknowledge, the difficulties of comparison between one jurisdiction and another. That is why this country spends so much money on Grants Commission processes, to enable them to effect comparisons between the accounts of different States. But that does not mean that individual States say, "We are not going to produce a set of accounts because you would not be able to compare them with anybody else's". I think it is useful information, and I think the argument that comparison with other jurisdictions would be difficult is, quite frankly, weak.

I also note the response to the recommendation in relation to short- and long-term options for addressing the emerging and accruing costs of superannuation. It is interesting to note that this has been the subject of recommendations in the 1996-97 Estimates Committee report and the 1997-98 Estimates Committee report, as well as the Public Accounts Committee's report; yet we are advised today that the Government so far has got only as far as letting tenders for a review of the superannuation scheme. For an issue which has been a matter of public discussion for the last three years and the subject of numerous committee recommendations brought into this place, it is disappointing that it is only

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