Mr MILLS - 2001-05-30
My question relates to debt. Despite the creating of a $25m black hole by pledging to introduce Queensland’s payroll tax system if the opposition happens to win government, the Leader of the Opposition continues to make a lot of noise about Territory debt. Can the Treasurer please assure Territorians that debt levels are both necessary and manageable?
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, the nonsense of the Leader of the Opposition’s remarks of the last week is best demonstrated by the fact that after many years in parliament she has worked out that if you divide our interest payments annually by 365 you will get an answer of about $0.5m a day. It has taken her five years to learn how to do a simple sum. Now, Mr Speaker, let’s have a look at ...
Members interjecting.
Mr Stirling: You wouldn’t tell Territorians yourself.
Mr REED: I have told them many times. I have told them many times. In terms of ...
Members interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr PALMER: Mr Speaker,I would ask and implore you to restore some order to this House so that at least ...
Mr SPEAKER: I am attempting to. I must remind you, Leader of Government Business, I am attempting to but it is very difficult at times to call louder than the member for Nhulunbuy.
Mr REED: In financial year 1991-92, our interest payments were $222m-$223m. This financial year the interest payments are about $180m and they will be about the same level next year, $182m. $40m less than what they were a decade ago notwithstanding that we have increased debt and that the increase in debt has been exceeded by the increase in the number of assets that Territorians have to use. So, if she was truthful, the opposition leader would recognise that our interest payments are in fact $40m lower than they were a decade ago because of the good judgement of Territorians.
She got the budget books. The Leader of the Opposition got the budget books yesterday. She went to Budget Book No 1 - they have marks on them so she knows which is number 1; didn’t want to number them on the front - goes through it. ‘Nothing nasty in there I can find,’ she said. ‘That’s a disappointment, that book’. Go to Budget Book No 2. Huge book, for the benefit of people who are listening to this Question Time broadcast, about 3cm thick. It has information on the funding for next financial year for every government agency and activity, a great volume of information for all Territorians transparently to see what we do. She went through the lot, could not find anything negative.
‘Let me have a look at Budget Book No 3,’ she said. ‘Maybe there’s something nasty I could incorrectly interpret in Budget Book No 3’ and sure enough, she did. For the first time ever in responding to the Territory Budget, the Leader of the Opposition found the Uniform Presentation Framework and she found it because she could present it in an incorrect, false way to try to denigrate the budget. It took her three books to find something. So, can I say that in trying to, out of the Uniform Presentation Framework, suggest that the forecast debt for next year of $12m is in fact going to be $150m is both misleading and it is dishonest and it misrepresents the factual position. And it does not serve yourself well as a prospective Chief Minister. It makes you look a goose because if you had not only read it, you would have said at least to your staff if you did not have the smarts to do it yourself, ‘You better just find out what the Uniform Presentation Framework is and how it works because I think we might be onto something here’. But no, she runs straight out into the street and says, ‘Found it, found it, found the nasties and here it is’.
I want to put on the record the details in relation to the Uniform Presentation Framework. The opposition is relying on tables in Budget Paper No 3 either page 127 or 129. These tables are on the Uniform Presentation Framework and it is a much broader presentation than the NT Budget Sector. The significant difference between the budget sector and the UPF presentations is the inclusion of the AustralAsia Railway Corporation and difference in timing between railway-related transactions. That is the project that you walked away from when it got hard, when the decisions had to be made. ‘Don’t put any more money in it; let’s have an inquiry. It’s a faded dream in any event’. If you were in government, Territorians who did not have a job a month ago who now have a job working on the railway would not be very happy.
The budget scope matches the Territory’s receipt and expenditure for the railway in the one year so that there is no net effect on the bottom line; it is a presentational issue. Whereas, in the UPF, receipts that were to be used to fund the Territory’s railway contribution were recorded a number of years ago. In particular, the $100m received from the sale of the Ayers Rock Resort was recorded in 1997. However, the expenditure is not recorded until 2000-01 and that is the reason why you were able to misinterpret the Uniform Presentation Framework and to quite erroneously suggest that you have a different presentation in terms of what the facts are going to be and to misrepresent the budget.
Now, you have done the same thing with the Conditions of Service Trust. In terms of the Conditions of Service Trust, it can be used at the discretion of the Treasurer for a number of purposes. It was used to hold the railway money. We could have been irresponsible and spent the money that we got from the sale of the Ayers Rock Resort. Didn’t. Put it into the Conditions of Service Trust and retained it for the railway. So let’s have a look at the superannuation that the Leader of the Opposition maintains public servants are going to be missing out on.
This budget, the books that you cannot read or understand, and the budget speech and the presentation and the increase in debt for this financial year in particular includes $17m from the consolidated revenue account. For what? For superannuation. It is a payment for former Commonwealth public servants who are now Territory public servants and we have to contribute to the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme and we do that. Did we do that from the Conditions of Service Trust? No, we did not. No, no, no, we did not. It is there all sort of stacked away for a future use. We did it from Consolidated Revenue and that was a contribution to the increase in debt this year.
So, for the Leader of the Opposition to falsely suggest that Territory public servants are going to miss out on their conditions of service or their superannuation because of the changed arrangements for the Conditions of Service Trust is deceitful in the extreme. It is wrong. The emerging needs of superannuation for public servants, if they exceed the projected amounts required in any particular budget year, are added to by the Consolidated Revenue account to make sure that they are provided for in full.
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, the nonsense of the Leader of the Opposition’s remarks of the last week is best demonstrated by the fact that after many years in parliament she has worked out that if you divide our interest payments annually by 365 you will get an answer of about $0.5m a day. It has taken her five years to learn how to do a simple sum. Now, Mr Speaker, let’s have a look at ...
Members interjecting.
Mr Stirling: You wouldn’t tell Territorians yourself.
Mr REED: I have told them many times. I have told them many times. In terms of ...
Members interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr PALMER: Mr Speaker,I would ask and implore you to restore some order to this House so that at least ...
Mr SPEAKER: I am attempting to. I must remind you, Leader of Government Business, I am attempting to but it is very difficult at times to call louder than the member for Nhulunbuy.
Mr REED: In financial year 1991-92, our interest payments were $222m-$223m. This financial year the interest payments are about $180m and they will be about the same level next year, $182m. $40m less than what they were a decade ago notwithstanding that we have increased debt and that the increase in debt has been exceeded by the increase in the number of assets that Territorians have to use. So, if she was truthful, the opposition leader would recognise that our interest payments are in fact $40m lower than they were a decade ago because of the good judgement of Territorians.
She got the budget books. The Leader of the Opposition got the budget books yesterday. She went to Budget Book No 1 - they have marks on them so she knows which is number 1; didn’t want to number them on the front - goes through it. ‘Nothing nasty in there I can find,’ she said. ‘That’s a disappointment, that book’. Go to Budget Book No 2. Huge book, for the benefit of people who are listening to this Question Time broadcast, about 3cm thick. It has information on the funding for next financial year for every government agency and activity, a great volume of information for all Territorians transparently to see what we do. She went through the lot, could not find anything negative.
‘Let me have a look at Budget Book No 3,’ she said. ‘Maybe there’s something nasty I could incorrectly interpret in Budget Book No 3’ and sure enough, she did. For the first time ever in responding to the Territory Budget, the Leader of the Opposition found the Uniform Presentation Framework and she found it because she could present it in an incorrect, false way to try to denigrate the budget. It took her three books to find something. So, can I say that in trying to, out of the Uniform Presentation Framework, suggest that the forecast debt for next year of $12m is in fact going to be $150m is both misleading and it is dishonest and it misrepresents the factual position. And it does not serve yourself well as a prospective Chief Minister. It makes you look a goose because if you had not only read it, you would have said at least to your staff if you did not have the smarts to do it yourself, ‘You better just find out what the Uniform Presentation Framework is and how it works because I think we might be onto something here’. But no, she runs straight out into the street and says, ‘Found it, found it, found the nasties and here it is’.
I want to put on the record the details in relation to the Uniform Presentation Framework. The opposition is relying on tables in Budget Paper No 3 either page 127 or 129. These tables are on the Uniform Presentation Framework and it is a much broader presentation than the NT Budget Sector. The significant difference between the budget sector and the UPF presentations is the inclusion of the AustralAsia Railway Corporation and difference in timing between railway-related transactions. That is the project that you walked away from when it got hard, when the decisions had to be made. ‘Don’t put any more money in it; let’s have an inquiry. It’s a faded dream in any event’. If you were in government, Territorians who did not have a job a month ago who now have a job working on the railway would not be very happy.
The budget scope matches the Territory’s receipt and expenditure for the railway in the one year so that there is no net effect on the bottom line; it is a presentational issue. Whereas, in the UPF, receipts that were to be used to fund the Territory’s railway contribution were recorded a number of years ago. In particular, the $100m received from the sale of the Ayers Rock Resort was recorded in 1997. However, the expenditure is not recorded until 2000-01 and that is the reason why you were able to misinterpret the Uniform Presentation Framework and to quite erroneously suggest that you have a different presentation in terms of what the facts are going to be and to misrepresent the budget.
Now, you have done the same thing with the Conditions of Service Trust. In terms of the Conditions of Service Trust, it can be used at the discretion of the Treasurer for a number of purposes. It was used to hold the railway money. We could have been irresponsible and spent the money that we got from the sale of the Ayers Rock Resort. Didn’t. Put it into the Conditions of Service Trust and retained it for the railway. So let’s have a look at the superannuation that the Leader of the Opposition maintains public servants are going to be missing out on.
This budget, the books that you cannot read or understand, and the budget speech and the presentation and the increase in debt for this financial year in particular includes $17m from the consolidated revenue account. For what? For superannuation. It is a payment for former Commonwealth public servants who are now Territory public servants and we have to contribute to the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme and we do that. Did we do that from the Conditions of Service Trust? No, we did not. No, no, no, we did not. It is there all sort of stacked away for a future use. We did it from Consolidated Revenue and that was a contribution to the increase in debt this year.
So, for the Leader of the Opposition to falsely suggest that Territory public servants are going to miss out on their conditions of service or their superannuation because of the changed arrangements for the Conditions of Service Trust is deceitful in the extreme. It is wrong. The emerging needs of superannuation for public servants, if they exceed the projected amounts required in any particular budget year, are added to by the Consolidated Revenue account to make sure that they are provided for in full.
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016