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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 5 Hansard (7 May) . . Page.. 1240 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

It goes on to talk about the question of how the audit was put together. It says:

The Government did establish a Commission of Audit in January 2002 to undertake a two-stage review of the Territory's finances. The Commission's first report on the state of the books as at 31 October 2001 was published in early March 2002. The report reveals nothing untoward about the Territory's finances.

It goes on to say, in the medium term budget outlook:

Under the usual no-policy-change assumption, our projections for the five-year forecasting period (two years longer than the Government's) are for the State sector's underlying cash surplus to hover in the $50-60 million range, with the exception of next year when a slight deficit looks possible on the back of an increase in capital spending foreshadowed in the new Labor Government's forward estimates for the GG sector.

It goes on to point out that it expects the GG sector to register slight but stable net operating deficits over the forecasting period and says that the government trading enterprise sector is expected to record slight but stable operating surpluses. It goes on to say:

We therefore expect the operating statement of ACT's State sector to be broadly in balance over the forecasting period ...

Mr Speaker, I take the point made by the Treasurer during question time today, that there is a difference in the accounting approach being used between this and the ACT, but the underlying statement made here still stands. Whatever system of accounting is used, you are still entitled to form a view about the statement: "The report reveals nothing untoward about the territory's finances." I do not think Mr Quinlan will say in this place that the differences in approach are so dramatic that one approach will leave you comfortable and relaxed about the underlying position of the territory's financial position, whilst another puts a few dozen grey hairs on the old cranium.

That is absolutely true. Even if Mr Quinlan's commission of audit result is taken to be right-that there is a $5 million loss expected for this financial year-a budget of something like $2.2 billion in this territory, which was put out to expect a surplus of $12.3 million, coming in with a loss of minus $4.8 million, is a less than 1 per cent variation from the published budget estimate, as of May of last year. It represents, in a budget of $2.2 billion, virtually a dead-on-target result for that financial year. As I have said, my comfortable expectation is that the result will be greater than minus $4.8 million. Indeed, that seems to be the case with Access Economics as well.

That document was followed this week by the assessment of Mr Paul Blessington, an independent consultant and also a director of KPMG. Mr Quinlan has been quick to point out that Mr Blessington is not independent, whatever that means. If that is the game I can play, I note that two of the members of the commission of audit were employees of Mr Quinlan. I do not know whether that makes them independent or not, in a commission composed of three members.

Mr Quinlan: Are you denigrating public servants, Mr Humphries?

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