Page 2669 - Week 08 - Thursday, 24 August 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
These are matters of concern. The report 2004-05 Financial audits contains a qualified opinion, and that was partly to do with the treatment of various assets and liabilities in terms of accounting standards. But the report contained this more troubling observation:
There are insufficient investments set aside to meet superannuation liabilities. The ratio of investments to superannuation liabilities has continued to decline in recent years from $0.65 in 2002 to $0.59 to 2005 in investments for each dollar of superannuation liabilities.
The report continues:
The impact of the new Public Sector Superannuation Accumulation Plan … for new employees on superannuation liabilities is to be assessed in coming years. As the PSSAP is fully funded, it should assist in limiting the future growth of superannuation liabilities.
The impact of wages and superannuation is obviously massive within the territory’s $3 billion budget. In the period ahead, with an ageing population that has greater needs in terms of health, aged care and the like, the capacity to generate revenue is not insignificant, and superannuation liability is an issue that will have to be watched closely. I understand from estimates that the officials are of the view that the date of achievement of funding our liability has improved quite significantly. Of course, in this regard events are not entirely within our control and market influences and the range of investments in which those funds are located can impact quite significantly on the territory’s capacity to fund its employees as they move towards retirement. It is essential, obviously, that those superannuation liabilities not come to fruition on one day. Over time this Assembly needs to be very conscious that the territory will have sufficient investments to meet its superannuation liabilities and that unfunded superannuation liabilities do not continue to increase, as has happened in previous years.
DR FOSKEY (Molonglo) (5.03): Mr Stanhope’s assertion that the ACT is not in competition with the commonwealth public service ignores reality. Of course we are in competition with the federal public service. How many of his CEOs have come from the commonwealth public service and how many of our middle management go there each year seeking new opportunities and better pay? How many teachers, park rangers and health workers move into commonwealth departments with matching but broader policy concerns? I do not know the figures, but I know it happens. Does the government keep figures?
The functional review, it appears, ignored the fact that we live in the shadow of the commonwealth public service that will continue to pay 15 per cent superannuation. The functional review author compared us instead to the public service in Western Australia and Tasmania. Those places are not commuting distance from the ACT. I am concerned that these changes will encourage our best and brightest to move to the commonwealth.
If the government was committed to remaining competitive in the ACT market, these cuts should have at least been announced in conjunction with announcements of improved working conditions and family friendly policies, childcare facilities for working parents, affordable housing initiatives, increasing commitment to work-life balance and healthier and more pleasant work environments. These are some of the non-
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .