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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 6 Hansard (13 June) . . Page.. 1604 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

So I am hopeful that the cost to the bottom line will not be significant. If there is an impact on the bottom line I believe that it will still be containable within what would be a comfortable or reasonable budget surplus. But that matter is still being explored by the government and when a decision has been made some further way down the track we will be able to advise the Assembly of that position.

I repeat that I do not see that the HIH position or the decision to build a prison in the ACT-a decision which I understand is supported by the Labor opposition-are likely to result in a significant deterioration of the bottom line which has been predicated for future years. Of course, I see in the majority estimates report tabled today-which, of course, is an incomplete document-that the opposition believes we have a $30 million loss in reality, not a surplus at all. So presumably they will let us know at some point how they are going to produce a surplus rather than a pretend surplus as they allege we have got. As far as I am concerned, with the figures that I have put forward, which will be verified in due course by the Auditor-General, I believe that the surplus that we have projected will be sustainable.

MR QUINLAN: Actually, the question was really about the long-term cash position. Does not this situation point up the degree of risk in this spend-at-all-costs budget that you have set up? I know that you have previously taken refuge in saying, "Oh, look at the investments growing," so I just let you know that the investments projected for 30 June 1995 were about $1.9 billion and the employee liabilities for that point in time will be $2.2 billion. So, in a budget this tightly tuned, are we going to effectively finance any further shortfalls that we have virtually out of holiday pay and long service leave of government employees?

MR HUMPHRIES: No. I have been through that several times already with Mr Quinlan, and we went through this, I think, in the Estimates Committee. The treatment we are using in this matter is, I believe, sustainable and supportable. We do not see the cash position as having significantly deteriorated as a result of this arrangement. As I said, as far as the prison is concerned, we are yet to make a decision on the exact way in which we will proceed but, on the basis of what we project at the present time, that is not likely to be the case.

I repeat: assets and investments of the ACT at the end of the projection period for this budget are well over $11/2 billion, and I think there is no need for anyone to fear the capacity of the territory to meet its obligations in those circumstances.

Yes, employee liabilities would be a potential problem if every employee were to be wiped out by a tidal wave or some virulent disease that took out all of our public servants at the one time. But, of course, we know that is not the case, and making provision for our public servants is what this government has been all about over the last few years. We have put more money into superannuation, for example, than any previous government because we want to make sure that our employees are properly cared for, and we have the runs on the board to demonstrate that we have the capacity to do just that.

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