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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 1 Hansard (2 February) . . Page.. 34 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

The alternative proposal, which the Government has to go away and develop, is one that minimises the net impact on the budget. Thanks; that is very helpful. It is one that provides a timed approach to funding the unfunded portion of the liability. Well, that is very helpful. A timed approach means do not pay it off all at once; do it over a period of time. Thank you very much; that really puts us on the right track. It is one that includes a repatriation from ACTEW to increase the current SPU coverage to above 30 per cent. That is somewhat specific, but again not particularly helpful. It does not tell us very much about exactly what proportion it should actually be, what sum of money should be repatriated. Finally, it is one that utilises the income stream from ACTEW to contribute towards the unfunded liability. That is, in fact, the most direct comment that it has made about what to do about the responsibility to meet the superannuation. But what does it actually mean? What it actually means is that we divert money which is presently coming by way of a dividend from ACTEW and we put it into the superannuation liability fund.

But the question has to be asked: Where is that dividend going now? Mr Speaker, I will tell you where it is going now. It funds schools, it funds teachers, it funds nurses, and it puts police on the streets of this city. If you take $40m, or whatever it happens to be, out of that dividend stream and put it into superannuation, that is fine; you have very partially covered superannuation - let us put aside the question of where the rest of the money comes from - but you have also opened up a huge gap in the recurrent costs of the Territory. And that, Mr Speaker, is where this report is so deficient. It does not identify how you take $40m, or whatever the figure might be, out of recurrent expenditure of this Territory and still provide essential services.

The members of this committee who brought down this report, I think, were derelict in their duty of addressing these issues. They did not face up to that question. Okay, we can poke a few holes in the Government's proposals. Big deal! What is the alternative? Where is the alternative model? There is no palatable alternative model, Mr Speaker. At the end of this debate, that remains our position.

Mr Kaine: What is the Government's fall-back position? You don't have one.

MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Kaine asked me for the Government's fall-back position. We at least have put a position on the table.

Mr Kaine: No, you have not.

MR HUMPHRIES: We have. It is very clearly on the table, Mr Speaker. Where is the alternative government's proposal? Where is their counter? How would they deal with this matter if tomorrow the Government fell and they were on the Treasury benches? Where are their proposals?

Mr Corbell: Give us a go.

MR HUMPHRIES: No. I think we deserve to see the whites of your eyes before we do that, Mr Corbell. We deserve to see what your proposal would be. Mr Speaker, it is intensely dishonest to simply and blithely promise to divert $40m into superannuation without explaining where that money is coming from. That is what this report does, and that is why this report should be rejected in its entirety by this Assembly.

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