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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 5 Hansard (2 May) . . Page.. 1345 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

It is worth noting in this respect that the retention of the triple-A credit rating was always the indicator used by the former Follett government as proof of its economic credentials; that it was a good manager of the territory's finances. Well, I would agree on that score.

I heard Mr Quinlan say this morning that he did not agree with the contention that the territory had been left with a $344.5 million loss-let us not forget the $0.5 million-by Labor. He added that he did not believe the figure had been independently verified or that the documents on which it was based were sighted.

I am intrigued by that comment because the Auditor examined the territory's accounts and produced an audit report on the operating position that the territory was facing. In fact, he produced several audit reports over a period of years in which he made comment on the progressive treatment that the territory had given to its operating loss. In his report No 8 for 1998 he cited the losses for three successive years after reporting on the previous years and said that the operating loss for 1995-96, after extraordinary items and abnormal items, was $344 million.

I am intrigued at the suggestion that the Auditor-General did not sight the documents on which he based that audit opinion. It seems to me like a terrible slur on the Auditor-General to say that he must have advised the community and the government and the parliament that this was the size of the loss without looking at the figures that underpinned it. That is an extraordinary suggestion, Mr Speaker, and one that I think has no basis in fact. The figures were repeated in successive years.

I point out that he also affirmed that there was an improvement in the territory's position between 1995-96 and 1997-98 of about $170 million. Again, that was his audited figure. There was a greater decrease in the size of the operating loss between 1995-96 and 1996-97. Again, Mr Quinlan finds it hard to believe that that figure could have been sustained. Perhaps we all might find it hard to believe in some respects, but the Auditor signed it off. He put it in writing to the parliament, to the government and to the community. So, who am I to argue, Mr Speaker?

I have to confess, Mr Speaker, that I have no idea whether it is the right figure or not. I have taken the view that if the Auditor-General of the Australian Capital Territory tells us it is the right figure I will take that as read. I would very much like to understand when it is that the Auditor's opinions are optional to be taken on board and when they are not. Would someone please produce the protocol on that? I would love to know that. When can we discard the Auditor's views and when can we not discard the Auditor's views? Mr Speaker, I think the Auditor's view is quite clear.

I quote again from the editorial this morning in the Canberra Times:

In many respects Mr Humphries has earned the reward of being able to dispense with a few goodies before the election. The Liberals inherited a budgetary position blown out by overspending based on debt ... However, since attaining Government ... the Liberals have done a lot of hard work in reducing the size of the public sector and with it the unsustainable deficits.

Mr Speaker, I commend if not my words about this budget then the words of the other commentators I have quoted and the Auditor-General to the Assembly.

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