The article by Saul Eslake (HERE) was factually incorrect and misrepresented my position.
I have never argued that the Government should be borrowing to pay out its unfunded superannuation liability nor that the Government has not been making contributions to the Superannuation Provision Account (SPA) established to meet the unfunded superannuation liability.
My point was that the SPA is no longer cash backed, an indisputable fact as evidenced in the budget papers.
That this is as a result of the Government drawing down its superannuation savings to meet its current expenditures is also a fact.
The Premier has herself confirmed this. It is also very clear that the State would be in a worse gross debt position today than it was in 1998 if it had to repay this cash back to the Superannuation Provision Account.
The State’s unfunded superannuation liability is currently around $4.5 Billion and growing, and as the SPA which should have around $1.5Billion is no longer cash backed it will be both current and future generations of Tasmanian taxpayers who will have to pay because this Government has spent all of the cash.
And that unfortunately is another fact.
Peter Gutwiein’s comments were first made on this article, HERE
