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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 8 Hansard (8 August) . . Page.. 2589 ..

MR QUINLAN (continuing):

documentation was very thin on the ground and totally inadequate. It leaves the Auditor in a position where he can really only draw conclusions from the facts before him.

It is important for the house to know that when the Auditor-General signs a certificate he is not saying that everything that was done by that organisation or everything that was done leading up to a particular financial report is absolutely correct and he is swearing to it. What he is effectively saying is: "I have had a professional and studied look at that information, and I have found nothing wrong with it." The Auditor cannot possibly certify that everything that goes into the preparation of a set of financial statements is absolutely accurate. That is an important point, as we see the government repeatedly using these figures from 1995-96 as some sort of indication of the economy that they took over and saying, "But the Auditor certified it. It must be absolutely correct."

For the record, the Auditor has told me that it was correct to the best of his knowledge, based on the information available, but that the information was very thin. Remember, this was a process of back casting information and papers from a previous year-back casting to an era when the records for accrual accounting were not being kept. So it is certainly the best the audit can do.

In that $344 million year, which the government keep talking about-the middle year of the first Carnell government-the deficit was inflated by an extraordinary item of $91 million. My personal opinion today is opposite: it is extremely dishonest of you people to use that number and say it was inherited from Labor. Sometimes it is a deficit; sometimes it is a debt. It is actually a deficit, but it was a deficit that occurred in a Carnell year. It was a deficit that was inflated by an extraordinary item of $91 million, so it is not even indicative of the performance of that year. But still it is used and, I say, dishonestly.

The actual operating figure was $253 million for that year. The next year the operating figure was $100 million, and the next year it bounced up again. Anybody who has any familiarity with financial figures would say there is an inconsistency in the trajectory of those figures, no matter how good a job the government is doing, and that these figures are inconsistent with the figures before and after. That would alert someone to say, "Don't place too much reliance on it." The Auditor has told me-and I will say it for the record-that he is quite happy with the balance sheet at the end of that year but rather thinks that the operating performance measured for that year is, at best, questionable and that one should not put blind faith in the last letter of those figures.

Remembering that these figures and these statements were prepared in an era of poor record keeping, as evidenced by the Bruce Stadium report, and very reckless practice within the administration, particularly the financial administration of the ACT, I think it reasonable to cast doubt on that figure as a true indication of what occurred, and I have done so. I am fully confident that the Liberal Party will continue to use that number as a mantra, but in the fullness of time it will remain a commentary on the veracity of the campaign material that this party is likely to use.

I will close by referring to the answer that Mr Humphries put on record today: what he accused me of during his first answer to my question and the evidence he later brought to this place. That is also a sad commentary on the way the Liberal Party is prepared to use

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