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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 2 Hansard (11 March) . . Page.. 638 ..

MS CARNELL

they suggested we do with our unfunded superannuation liability, and that is to pull it back to the levels that they suggested. You know what happens? We get rid of our operating loss. Done. No trouble.

Unfortunately, I wrote to Mr Quinlan, chair of the Public Accounts Committee, and suggested this and he said he did not think it was such a good idea. Fancy that. What does this tend to tell you? Yes, that the figures were rubbish. Anyway, we will not get into that right now, Mr Speaker. So there are a number of ways we can get rid of the operating loss: Fiddle the figures; get rid of depreciation; use the Australia Institute's figures for the sale of ACTEW, their valuation of ACTEW, and their view on return on investment. But, Mr Speaker, all of those approaches are simply rubbish. They do not address the issue at hand, and that is that we spend more money than we raise. In the end we would still end up where the Auditor-General said we would, and that is with the quality of life being undermined for our kids; in other words, significant debt in the future.

Mr Speaker, I will comment very briefly on Ms Tucker's contribution. She claimed that the Government had issued an environmental accounting discussion paper in 1997 and little else had happened. Well, Ms Tucker, for the record, on 23 September 1997 I did table this discussion paper in the Assembly and I specifically asked for input from the community and the ACT Greens. Guess what happened, Mr Speaker? Well, we have received nothing from the Greens since that date. I guess that speaks volumes for the commitment generally to environmental accounting. Yes, it is a tough issue, Mr Speaker; no doubt about that. We have the discussion paper on the table, but the silence is deafening.

Mr Berry, in his speech, made some comments about real terms funding for education. I think it is really important, Mr Speaker, to use this opportunity to show, but again, that Mr Berry is simply wrong.

Mr Berry: Tell us about the flagpole.

MS CARNELL: Mr Speaker, I would do just about anything to promote the ACT. Funny about that.

Mr Berry: Do not do it. It would not work for you.

MS CARNELL: I am not sure it would work either, but I would still do just about anything. Mr Speaker, we were elected to government in 1995. If real terms CPI increases were now allocated to our education budget over those years since we came to government, Mr Speaker, it turns out that we have actually funded education some $26m more than real terms funding. Why is that so, Mr Speaker? Some members may not have realised that over the past three years the actual change in our consumer price index has been considerably lower than the rate we have incorporated in each budget.

For example, in 1996-97 the Government used a CPI figure of 2 per cent to adjust funding upwards for schooling, as that was the estimate at the time the budget was put together. However, the actual CPI figure for that year was 0.7 of one per cent. Because of this difference, we have calculated that over the past three budgets government schooling has received an additional $26m above what it should have if the Government

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