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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 5 Hansard (6 May) . . Page.. 1536 ..

MR QUINLAN (continuing):

If you want to work out where the borrowings are and where the investments are, you have to do a little bit of gymnastics through these so-called very clear, transparent reports. You even get money taken from ACTEW written up as a receivable. What does that mean? It probably means that ACTEW is in the departure lounge as well. Otherwise, it would be an investment, would it not? We know that Mrs Carnell likes to rub shoulders with merchant bankers. We have all heard rumours of a future career for her in one of any number of merchant banks, some of which become related and then unrelated according to circumstance, but we did not think that she would be practising for this future with territorial funds.

The key point in all this is why, as a sound strategy, we are holding debts which cost interest while investing superannuation and other funds to gain interest at no real cash gain. Pardon the scepticism, but could it be, Mr Rugendyke, that the Chief Minister wants us to remain spooked about the unfunded superannuation liability, even though it appears that our future financial position is improving and it is not quite as bad as is reflected in the superannuation statements?

We would be interested in seeing this Government pursue a financial management strategy that does not try to ride on the wave of stock market gains or one that is not subject to interest rate fluctuations. We would like to see a strategy which uses as little debt as is possible and frees cash flow which can be reallocated to the Superannuation Provision Unit for dedicated investment into the burgeoning superannuation liability. We need to see legislation which will protect the dedicated superannuation funds. We also need to create a board, one which hopefully does not involve Bankers Trust or ABN AMRO, to ensure that our dedicated superannuation assets remain secure.

Regardless of what strategies are forthcoming, it must be noted by all that our borrowings position is predicted to increase as our investments achieve the magnitude of a small eastern oil emirate. Read your statements to see just how much debt we have as well as superannuation liability. We have this humungous load of cash by 2003. Why? I would feel much better if we took a marginally more conservative approach. Other State governments have pursued a strategy of eliminating debt. Even Mrs Carnell's patron saint, Jeff Kennett, paid off debt as a first priority. If the ACT comes a massive financial cropper, it will not be the first State in Australia that has done it in living memory. (Extension of time granted) What are we playing at? This Government's record is one of little regard for due process or of acknowledgment that it is handling money on trust for the people of the Territory. It is about time we took a little dose of reality.

What else does the Government gain from adopting in this budget only part of the recommendation of the select committee on the unfunded superannuation liability? It does reduce the net worth of ACTEW. It does bring ACTEW closer to Great Southern Energy in net value, making a merger still a bit unbalanced but a little less unbalanced. A merger offers the Government a chance to sell down more of ACTEW through resizing the asset, through balancing the equity contained. I suggest that the crossbenches have a good, quiet look at the numbers. If the last debate is any indication, then we will get a stream of misinformation from the Government within the foreseeable future.

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