Page 236 - Week 01 - Thursday, 16 February 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
demonstration of our commitment to making sure that we are able to grow the health work force we need for the future.
Mr Stanhope: I ask that all further questions be placed on the notice paper.
Supplementary answers to questions without notice
Budget
MR QUINLAN: In the last couple of days I have received about three questions in a row—three questions anyway—that seem to have an underlying theme: what did you know about superannuation; there is a conspiracy here and if we ask this question often enough, we might convince someone that there is a conspiracy here.
I have two pieces of paper in front of me. They are, I think, out of cabinet briefs so I hope my colleagues do not castigate me for actually divulging something out of cabinet papers. The first, dated 14 October, is entitled Emerging and/or difficult to quantify budget risks. It deals with a whole lot of things, including workers comp, land revenue, insurance, ACT forests, commonwealth grants and the superannuation actuarial review. The note states, “The annual review of superannuation liability represents a risk to the bottom line,” and the amounts are filled in for 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09. They are: “None”, “none”, “none” and “none—unable to quantify”.
The second note, dated 7 November, lists identified risks and, as you would understand, there is again a whole raft of them, including superannuation actuarial review. The note states: “Indicative estimates of future increases in emerging cost deficit and accrual expenses-figures will be quantified in December.” The estimates for 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 are shown as $8 million, $10 million, $8 million and $8 million.
So had I gone to estimates in November and not October and had you asked me those questions and had I given you those figures, we would all now be decrying the fact that I gave you bum information. In fact, if you had asked me in November in estimates, I would have said that we should wait for the actuarial review anyway. I would like to scotch any grubby inference, as was alluded to on the radio, I think yesterday morning, by Mulcahy, that I had figures that I would not divulge.
Mr Mulcahy: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If Mr Quinlan feels that he has been misrepresented in the house, then I think it is appropriate to raise that matter here. But I do not think that comments in a radio interview are covered by the standing orders.
MR SPEAKER: He is permitted to provide additional information in relation to the question.
MR QUINLAN: I think I should be able to refer to a grubby slur on the radio, Mr Speaker.
MR SPEAKER: You can provide additional information, Mr Quinlan.
MR QUINLAN: Yes. I think I have provided enough, really.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .