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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 4 Hansard (28 March) . . Page.. 971 ..

MR HUMPHRIES: Yes, we heard the words, Mr Corbell. The question still needs to be asked why even in the interim did you agree to a reduction in the change of use charge? What was the advantage, even in the interim, in reducing the change of use charge? Apparently I am airing conspiracy theories. I am very happy to be corrected. I am sure that, instead of adjourning this debate, Mr Hargreaves would be happy to tell us what the real reason was that Labor went to a 75 per cent change of use charge.

I also remind members that just a few months ago there was trenchant criticism of government members for failing to accept the so-called umpire's decision on certain matters relating to maternal health information. In this particular matter, the change of use charge, we had an umpire who was agreed to by the Labor Party whose submissions and findings have now been rejected. The evidence we need to conclude that there is benefit in lowering the change of use charge can be found in the actions of the Australian Labor Party itself.

Debate (on motion by Mr Hargreaves ) adjourned.

Debate resumed.

MR QUINLIN (3.56): (Further extension of time granted) I do not suppose anybody wants a recap. I will recap a bit. I recognise that something here may or may not be so in terms of the superannuation debate. We have been trying to nut out the numbers. The interest inclusion may be accounted for in the most convoluted of fashions by updating the liability and then taking off the last year's and adding the payment that goes out. As soon as I discovered this I spoke to my colleague Mr Kaine. This is part of my input and I take responsibility for it. I have not spoken to Mr Cornwell because Mr Cornwell has a disclaimer on this, and probably well to his credit.

It is still the case that the treatment of the adjustment for superannuation, which has now been amortised under some American standard, has been shifted above the line to flatter the final bottom line of the budget. Although the Auditor-General gives that a tick in terms of accounting principles, it still gives rise to the fact that we are telling ourselves we have made, in a given year, in this particular year of performance, a substantial amount of money over and above that which we have done.

What follows is that this exercise and the elements that were discussed here, rightly or wrongly, give force to the notion that we really should separate the accounting for superannuation outside operations, so that we have the following clear statement in the operating statement: This is the superannuation expense for the year. Then that transfers into superannuation.

It does not necessarily follow with cash, but there should be at least a notional superannuation trust set up. The Commonwealth has set up its own superannuation fund. Many major corporations have their own superannuation trusts, with a separate set

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