standing committee on public accounts annual and financial ... · qton 04 27.02.2017 mr coe cmtedd...

Standing Committee on Public Accounts Annual and Financial Reports 2015-2016

CMTEDD, ACT Insurance Authority, and Icon Water Portfolios Questions Taken on Notice

Public hearings of 27 February 2017

Type of Questions No Hearing

Date Asked By Directorate / Portfolio Subject Proof Transcript page no

Answer date

QTON 01 27.02.2017 Mrs Dunne CMTEDD National Injury Insurance Scheme 10 09.03.2017 QTON 02 27.02.2017 Mrs Dunne CMTEDD Compulsory Third Party premiums 10 14.03.2017 QTON 03 27.02.2017 Mrs Dunne CMTEED Shared Services ICT 18 16.03.2017 QTON 04 27.02.2017 Mr Coe CMTEDD Application Program Interfaces 20 08.03.2017 QTON 05 27.02.2017 Mrs Dunne CMTEDD Shared Services accounts deadlines 22 08.03.2017 QTON 06 27.02.2017 Mr Pettersson CMTEDD Principles for Reasonable Investment 23 08.03.2017 QTON 07 27.02.2017 Mr Coe CMTEDD Superannuation Provision Account 25 08.03.2017 QTON 08 27.02.2017 Mr Coe ACT Insurance Authority ACT Insurance Authority Advisory Board 14 09.03.2017 QTON 09 27.02.2017 Mrs Dunne Icon Water Icon Water augmentation on Northbourne Avenue 28 14.03.2017 QTON 10 27.02.2017 Mr Coe Icon Water Murrumbidgee to Googong pipeline system – altitude 33 09.03.2017 QTON 11 27.02.2017 Mr Coe Icon Water Murrumbidgee to Googong pipeline system – timeframe 34 09.03.2017

QTON 12 27.02.2017 Mrs Dunne Icon Water Work undertaken to transfer water from Googong to the Cotter System 34 15.03.2017

QTON 13 27.02.2017 Mrs Dunne Icon Water Icon Water’s capital and debt servicing costs 35 15.03.2017 QTON 14 27.02.2017 Mrs Dunne Icon Water Long-term water security licence 40 09.03.2017

QTON 1

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY FOR THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS VICKI DUNNE MLA (CHAIR), MICHAEL PETTERSSON MLA (DEPUTY CHAIR), BEC CODY MLA,.

ALISTAIR COE MLA

' Inquiry into referred 2015-16 Annual and Financial Reports

ANSWER TO QUESTION TAKEN ON NOTICE 27 February 2017

Mrs Dunne MLA"asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 27 February 2017:

In relation to National Injury Insurance Scheme:

THE CHAIR: What is the quantum of the levy on workers comp?

Ms Holmes: Three point eight million per year. So that is for-so the workers comp started 1 July of 2016. So we are actually in the .first year. We have to do a levy assessment every single year for workers-

THE CHAIR: Yes.

Ms Holmes: As well as CTP, and it is then an instrument that we put out as to wliat we think the esti~ated amount Is. So it is three point eight f1:illion that we have levied.

THE CHAIR: So how do you work that out per-

Mr Nicol: ltis-

THE CHAIR: Per employee or per person covered with-' '

Mr Nicol: I am going from memory now, Chair, and Mr Young, who is my expert in this. I think it is the three point eight divided by our total premium base1 and that is just a percentage increase ofon workers compensation premiums, but l can confirm that_?

THE CHAIR: Yes. Sure. Yes.

Mr Nicol: And.I can give you the

Ms Holmes: We-

Mr Nicol: What the delta is, unless you know the answer.

Ms Holmes: We use the same splits that we use-that the workers comp levy that they charge across the insurers, and it Is based on the risks and the amount of premiums that each of the

Civic Square, London Circuit (Gf'O Box 1020) canberra ACT 2601 T (02) 6205 0127 F (02) 6205 0432 E [email protected] · W www.parllament.act.gov.au

Printed on 100% re.cycled paper

t I I I I i rI

I I I

workers comp insurers actually collect, and In the case of the self-insurers~ there is a nominal amount which is calculated for them.

Mr Barr MLA: The answer to the Member's question is as follows:-,

Section 84 of the Lifetime Care and Support {Catastrophic (Injuries) Act 2014 (the LTCS Act) requires the Lifetime Care and Support {LTCS) Commissioner to determine a work injury levy for each contribution period under the LTCS Act.

The required fund contribution for work Injuries payable by workers compensation insurers and selfinsurers is calculated to fully fund the present and likely future liabilities for people with work injuries who become participants in the scheme during each contribution period. The required fund contribution is based on an actuarial estimate of liabilities for each contribution period.

Section 848 of the Lifetime Care and Support Act 2014 allows the Commissioner to make guidelines about how the work injury levy will be calculated for each insurer and self-insurer. Each workers compensation insurer and self-insurer in the ACT will be assessed a portion of the required fund contribution based on estimated market share for the contribution period. The L TCS Commissioner will apply market share estimates for each insurer and self-insurer as determined for the ACT workers compensation regulatory levy under section 210 of the Workers Compensation Act 1951.

Approved for circulation to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts

Signature: ~~ Mr Andrew Barr MLA Treasurer

Date: tf.3,17

Page 2 of 2

I

' I I ~

I I H

QTON 2


STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS VICKI DUNNE MLA (CHAIR), _MICHAEL PETTERSSON MLA (DEPUTY CHAIR), BEC CODY MLA,.

ALISTAIR COE MLA

Inquiry into referred 2015-16 Annual and Financial Reports ANSWER TO QUESTION TAKEN ON NOTICE

27 February 2017

Mrs Dunne MLA asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 27 February 2017:

In relation to Compulsory Third Party (CTP) premiums:

THE CHAIR: I think this is a question to take on notice, but could you provide for us an indication of what CTP premiums look like in other jurisdictions at, you know, first of January, thirtieth of Juneat a particular point just for comparison.

Mr Nicol: That will not take us long to get out. We can take it on notice.

Ms Holmes: That is something that we regularly do.

THE CHAIR: Yes. So the most recent one.

Ms Holmes: Yes.

THE CHAIR: If you could provide that on notice, that would be great.

/4C El v"-' /q,~"' "'¢

! o~o f 1 4 MAR 2017 \

i t ;.;:,4?, ACT LA ~<:J

1lf'EE S'J~

Ms Holmes: I will say that what we will have to provide-we actually need to include the lifetime care, because some jurisdictions split it out like we do, that they have got a separate levy. Some other jurisdictions, such as Victoria, do not, because it is all done by the Transport Accident Commission. They actually do not have a split, so in order to be able to do a comparison, we have to include both of those so that it is consistent.

THE CHAIR: Okay. Right. So it would be good to be able to compare, as much as possible, like with like. Thank you.

Mr Barr MLA: The answer to the Member's question is as follows:-

The following table provides the cost of the total compulsory third-party (CTP) premium for a class 1 passenger vehicle (private use) for 12 months across the States as at 1 October 2016, in order of the highest to lowest total CTP premium. Where applicable, the quoted premium is based on the lowest cost provider.

The total cost of the CTP premium includes levies imposed by the States on CTP; stamp duty (where applicable); as well as the lifetime care (LTC) levy. The LTC levy for a number of States is embedded within

Civic Square, London Circuit (GPO Box 1020) Canberra ACT 2601 T (02) 6205 0127 F (02) 6205 0432 E [email protected] W www.parliament.act.gov,au

Printed on_ 100% recycled paper

I I !

I ~ ~ J

I I I I i i .

.

i

' i H

the CTP premium and is not identiffable. As such, for comparability purposes, where the LTC levy is separately calculated and identified, it is also included in the total CTP premium.

TOTAL CTP PREMIUM FOR A CLASS 1 PASSENGER VEHICLE

NSW ACT NT Vic SA WA Qld Tas

$674.79 $585.90 $546.85 $502.70 $500.00 $409.35 $368.60 $338.00

New South Wales (NSW) announced recently that it will proceed with reforms to introduce a hybrid nofault CTP insurance scheme underwritten by private insurers. Under a reformed CTP scheme, NSW expects that the average CTP premium will be reduced by more than $100. If this level of reduction is achieved in NSW, then without reform to our scheme, the ACT will have the highest CTP premiums in Australia.


Signature: 4;::..,. · Mr Andrew Barr MLA Treasurer

Date: to.'S .n

Page 2 of2

QTON 3


STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS VICKI DUNNE MLA {CHAIR), MICHAEL PETTERSSON MLA {DEPU1Y CHAIR), BEC CODY MLA,

ALISTAIR COE MLA


27 February 2017


In relation to Shared Services lCT:

..... en 3: J> = "" ~ ........

THE CHAIR: Could I go into one of your priorities for 16-17, which is to work with local industrythe local industry advocate to improve local engagement of local industry in JCT services to government? Could you tell us at the moment-and this is probably something to take on noticethe total value of work undertaken by local providers in the ICT area to support the ACT public service as in 15-16, and the total value of work for outsiders, and the number of contractors engaged, and whether they are local-whether they are classified as local or non-local?

Mr Nicol: I think-we will certainly give you some information. I think the challenge will be the definition of what is local and what is not local.

M.r Barr: So we will use the Canberra region-

THE CHAIR: Yes, I am happy if you use the Canberra region, but

Mr Barr: That is the basis of the-.

Mr Nicol: Yes, no, 1 was going to points like, you know, it might be a Sydney firm that wins business but sets up an office here. So they might,be local but, you know, that is the challenge.

THE CHAIR: Well, that is the thing. I mean, were they local when they got the contract? It may be advantageous for them to set up an office here once they get the contract.

Mr Nicol: Indeed, or they might have had an office here and expanded it.


Shared Services is not easily able to provide information regarding the total value of work undertaken by local providers within the timeframe requested, as payment details recorded in the Territory's Financial Management Information System does not specifically identify local area and non local area suppliers as this is not a system requirement. ln order to obtain this information Shared Services would have to manually investigate each Supplier to determine their area status.

Civic Square, London Circuit (GPO Box 1020) Canberra ACT 2601 T (02) 6205 0127 F (02) 6205 0432 E [email protected] Wwww.parliament.act.gov.au

Printed on 100% recycled paper

-

Procurement and Capital Works have advised that they could provide indicative information based on reviewing several sources including the Contracts Register, Tenders ACT and the financial system but this would not be complete and wouJd·require significant manual processes to be undertaken to verify the information obtained. ACT Government as part of the implementation of the Local Industry Participation policy is further developing its systems to monitor the value of local supplier engagement. This will be done by capturing more details of tender responses that describe their economic contribution and business connection to the ACT and region.


Signature: ~ £ Mr Andrew Barr MLA Treasurer

Date: i5'. 'I.-"]

Page 2 of2

QTON 4


STANDING COMMITTEE. ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS VIE:KI DUNNE MLA (CHAIR)J MICHAEL PEITERSSON MLA (DEPUTY CHAIR), BEC CODY MLA, ALISTAIR COE MLA

Inquiry into referred 2015-16 Annual and Financial Reports · ANSWER TO QUESTION TAKEN ON NOTICE

27 February 2017

Mr Coe MLA asked the Treasurer, upon noticeJ on 27 February 2017:

In relation to Application Program Interfaces (APls):

MR COE: What is an example whereby you actually got an API which is currently accessible?

Mr Tanton: A very good question.

Mr Davis: I cannot answer that question.

MR COE: Are there any?,

Mr Nicol: I think-is not the GPS on the buses-

Mr Tanton: I think so. I can just give you a listing of that.


~CE/1,,~

~ lf:k? o ... 8 MAR 2017

The ACT Government Digital Strategy recognises that Application Programmatic Interfaces (AP ls) are key to the success of our digital future.A successful digital future includes increased economic activity, by enabling local industry to build solutions on top of APls to improve outcomes for our citizens.

As Directorates embrace the Digital Strategy into their service delivery, APls will become increasingly more

important. By "currently accessible", only APls available to the community have been included in the list requested, which are:

. • Smart Parking Trial in Manuka - provides real time parking availability;

• DataACT - enables access to a growing pool of data made available;

• ACTION Buses - enables access to bus timetable information;

• Health Protection Services - Drugs and Poisons Information System (restricted access)

Civic Square, London Circuit (GPO Box 1020) Canberra ACT 2601 T (02) 6205 0127 F (02) 6205 0432 E [email protected] W www.parllament.act.gov.au


I

I fl ~ ' ' ! ' I I I ! I

! !

I I I


Signature: ~£ Mr Andrew Barr MLA Treasurer

Date: 7. 3.1'1

Page 2 of 2

QTON 5


STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS VICKI DUNNE MLA {CHAIR), MICHAEL PITTERSSON MLA (DEPUTY CHAIR), BEC CODY MLA,

ALISTAIR COE MLA

Inquiry into referred 2015-16 Annual and Financial Reports ANSWER TO QUESTION TAl<EN ON NOTICE

27 February 2017


In relation to Shared Services accounts deadlines:

THE CHAIR: I am mindful of the ti.me and I have got a question about shared services. Has anyone else got a question about shared services? Could I just ask are there deadlines in place for payment of accounts to local small business people? ·

Mr Tanton: Yes there is.

THE CHAIR: What are they and are they being met?

Mr Tanton: 90 per cent-of invoices need to be paid within the term of the invoice or within 30 days . is generally the government cot"\'lmissions. Just bear with me. I think we are just underneath that. I

think we are-I will just check that. Just bear with me. If you have another question I will just find out where it is and I will come back to you.

THE CHAIR: No, I think we might be;__;

Mr Nicol: We will dig that out.

/4CE!v;~>, I<;;~""'· -~ ~ <:: o \

/5'30 \ ~ 8 MAR 2017

C'l ,,,, THE CHAIR: Perhaps we can take it on notice. S½,I?. ACT LA q_O~/

1'rrE.E S'IJ~ " Mr Nicol: My recollection was, I mean there are various ways to look at this, butl'hl-,rlfl ection was for those we do meet we actually meet within, sort of, two weeks rather than the 30 days. So some take longer for various reasons a bout insuring that the services or product has been delivered before we pay but that was my recollection of the statistics when I last looked at them.

THE CHAIR: Okay. If you could take that on notice that would probably save a bit of time. Mr Pettersson, you had questions on superannuation. ·


AII suppliers external to ACT Government, are paid in accordance with the payment terms and conditions on the invoice unless there is a contractual arrangement in place, in which case payment

Civic Square, London Circuit (GPO .Box 1020) Canberra ACT 2601 T (02) 6205 0127 F (02) 6205 0432 E [email protected] Wwww.parliament.act.gov.au


! !

is made in accordance with the terms of the contract. For the period from 1 July 2015 to 30 June 2016, 86% of external invoices were paid on time.


Signature: ~ Mr Andrew Barr MLA Treasurer

·;

Date: 7, 3'. '1

Page 2 of 2

QTON 6


STANDING COMMITIEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS VICKI DUNNE MLA (CHAIR), MICHAEL PETTERSSON MLA (DEPUTY CHAIR}, BEC CODY MLA,

ALISTAIR COE MLA


27 February 2017

Mr Pettersson MLA asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 27 February 2017:

In relation to annual Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI):

MR PETTERSSON: Hello. Superannuation provision account received an A rating for the accounts annual principles for responsible investment reporting assessment. Can you provide an overview of what those

principles are exactly?

Mr Barr MLA: The answer to the Member's question is as follows:

A copy of the 2016 PRI assessment report is attached.


Signature: ~~ Mr Andrew Barr MLA

Treasurer

- 8 MAR 2017

Date: 7.1,17

Civic Square, London Circuit (GPO Box 1020) Canberra ACT 2601 T (02) 6205 0127 F (02) 6205 0432 E [email protected] W www.parliament.act.gov.au


II p R 11 Principles for 1111 Responsible ••• Investment

ASSESSMENT REPORT 2016

Australian Capital Territory

FINANCE UNEP INITIATIVE

,;:,~l(.'o~

l~\ri United Nations ~d Global Compact -

SHARING THIS REPORT

The PRI will not publish the assessment reports in 2016 however signatories can publish or share

this report. Should they choose to share/publish, they must:

a Refer to the PRI assessment methodology;

n Refer to their full Assessment Report if only, a section is published;

• Refer to their Transparency Report; and

~ Take every care not to represent scores out of context.

PRI DISCLAIMER

This document is based on information reported directly by signatories. Moreover, the underlying

information has not been audited by the PR! or any other party acting on its behalf. While every

effort has been made to. produce a fair representation of performance, no representations or

warranties are made as to the accuracy of the information presented, and no responsibility or liability

can be accepted for damage caused by use of or reliance on the information contained within this

report.

INTRODUCTION

Thank you for participating in the

annual PRI Reporting and

Assessment process.

The Assessment report is designed to

provide feedback to signatories to support

ongoing learning and development.

A brief description of the information

presented in each section of this report and

how it should 'be interpreted is provided

below. Further information about the high

level assessment methodology can be found

here and a companion document explaining

the assessment of each indicator can be

found here.

ORGANISATIONAL OVERVIEW

This section provides an overview of the main

characteristics of your organisation. This

information determined which modules and

indicators you reported on and determines

your peer groups.

SUMMARY SCORECARD

This section provides an overview of your

aggregate score for each module and the

median score. These bands range from 'A+'

(top band) to 'E' (lowest band).

ASSESSMENT BY MODULE

For each module you reported on, you will

see a section that shows your:

Indicator scorecard

Section scores

" Comparison to peer groups

3

ASSESSMENT REPORT I 2016

INDICATOR SCORECARD AND MODULE

SCORES

Your i.ndicator scorecard summarises the

scores you achieved for each core and

additional assessed indicator within each

module.

These will range from *** to ***. It also provides basic information about the

performance of your organisation compared

with other. signatories that responded to that

indicator. The number of stars determines

your overall module score. Please refer to the

assessment methodology summary for

additional information about how these

scores are calculated.

SECTION SCORES

Each module is divided into several sections.

The total number of stars you can achieve in

each section are added together and

presented in a spider chart.

PEER COMPARISON

Your total aggregated performance band for

each module will be compared against your

peer groups in a series of distribution charts.

CONFIDENTIALITY

The results of signatory's. assessments can

be shared and published externally if the

signatory wishes to do so. PRI will not publish

the assessment reports in 2016. Please see

a full explanation on Page 2 of this report.

For more information, please contact the

PRl's Reporting and Assessment Team on

[email protected] or +44 (0) 20 3714 3185

ASSESSMENT

I I I

I


MMARY

4 ASSESSMENT


ORGANISATIONAL OVERVIEW This section provides an overview of your organisation. These characteristics are used to define your peer groups.

,~_- ~ -~--~- -~~\ ~- ~-~-)i_~----~~~-Y~~~f~a_~~~~t~~~1~j_ ~~ ~~--- ~ -~ ~--==----:_

- ....c-- - -- - - - - -- - . -- - - --- -" - - '

Name Australian Capital Territory

Signatory Category Asset Owner

Signatory Type Reserve - sovereign or government controlled fund

Size US$ 1 - 4.99 billion AUM

Main Asset Class . Multi-Asset

Signed PRI Initiative 2008

Region Oceania

Country Australia

Disclosure of Voluntary Indicators 89% from 27 Voluntary indicators

~ -- --- ~- ~- --~--- ::--_- -s::.-~ ·-- - __ cac::=--~- - - -- -- ---::_ ---- :. -j

::_ _ - - -- _-_¥:OL:IR 0RG~f\JISAii0!-J'S-~S~ElrSJJNQ!;.R IVl;NAG_EM~N'f' {AUM)t -_- --___ -::5--l

:· ----~ -:- ~is~{c~siii{~ -_::(f ~te~~~-':'! ~-itt~~E~Jlit~~t1E~NA12!-;~-~~~~~~~j);~! Listed equity 0 10-50%

Fixed income 0 10-50%

Private equity 0 <10%

Property 0 <10%

Infrastructure 0 0

Commodities 0 0

Hedge funds 0 0

Forestry 0 0

Farmland 0 0

Inclusive finance 0 0

Cash 0 10-50%

other 1 0 0

Other 2 0 0

tAsset classes were aggregated to four ranges: 0%; <10%; 10-50% and >50%

5 ASSESSMENT

ASSESSMENT REPORT I 2016 , ___ .,,_.,.,...,_,,_"'"'"W''"'-'"'"'"''"''""" ... .,_,,_.,,_,,...,.,..,,.,o,..,..,,......., .... _,_,, ..... ,._,.......,,,...,_.., _ _,..,,,__.....,.m....,_,., ____ ,., .. _.,.,.,,.,,.,......,_ ___ ,. ___ ......,,_..., ..... ,,

mm IIHIIIWIIIO!f!1i!iltf ill 111111 mm1u1111rumrn1m11111@MIWIIUIIYII/JlliHIIIIUm11ni1:mnw1m11H iwm:&&®8MWW~

09. Infrastructure

Your Sc.ore

D

D

I Median I Score

8

B

8

B

Not applicable

, ____________ ,_,_,_,,.,...._ ...... .,,._,,_ . ....,,_,, .... ,_.,

•11111 Your Module name scor~

10. Listed Equity -, Incorporation

• ·-IIIIBl-llll~~ll!llllllll1BIIHIIW

- IM~IOOOOlllllllllll ffl--Hlllmllil Wa ,.

I 10 12. Fixed Income - SSA

IIE3III ! I ,· I

Bio 13. Fixed Income -! Corporate Financial r I I I

lo 14. Fixed Income -Corporate Non-Financial

I ,.

f 15. Fixed Income -lo

I Securitlsed I I 1· I

i 16. Private Equity , 0 l

... l i I

17. Property

I 0 18. Infrastructure

Your I Score I

Not applicable

Median Score

IB Not applicable

Not applicable

Not applicable

Not applicable

Not applicable

Not applicable

Not applicable

A+

A

B

C

D

E

A+

A

B

C

D

E

"Strategy & Governance" & "Indirect - Manager Sel., App. & Mon." modules

- Strategyan(I Governance -- Ll!sted Equiiy - Flxed h!>Oms -SSA

A A A ~A

-.- Fl!'(.ed:lncome-CF - FlXCdln·OOmc-SEC -= PrWate Equity - Pr<>pc,ly - l'ntrastrwcturs

D ..... .;:;, .......... .

D

2014 2015 2016

"Strategy & Governance" & "Indirect - Manager Sel., App. & Mon." modules

B .............

C ,.:;.~

D

2014

B: "' B

c- ~?_...,.,.,-,· . . 9 .......

-c

2015 20,16

-=-- strateigyand:Go-vemance - Li.51ed Equil:)' "'"""""'"" Fixsd·1n,come ·SSA --- F'i:ceclJneome-CF _,... Fixed Income-SEC - Private Equity ......... Pr-0p,erty - tnfras-lructuria

A+

A

B

C

D

E

A+

A

B

C

D

E

ASSESSMENT REPORT I 2016 ______ ,_,,_, .. ,,,, ... , _______ _

"Direct and Active Ownership" modules

- Listed Equlty-Ac:tive Ownwship

B ..... ~_. ............................................. .

C C ··-·-· ................ _,____ ·-·-- ·-·

20114 2015 20'16

Direct and Active Ownership modules

- Listed Equity-Active ownership

B B

~· .• -~ .. ·--····· C

2:014 2015 20,1~

··="~rn,,.'iirl,.,,,,C..,1s!l:'ll~i:zwmv~,.,...,..,.._ ... ,w:,=,,.,._4_,..,,..".:.rnm.:i.w..""7,~m:=:?~..l\,;t1,1-~


A E SMENT y

MO u

8 ASSESSMENT


Strategy and Governance

This module covers your organisation's overall approach to responsible investment, including

governance, responsible investment policy, objectives and targets, the resources allocated to

responsible investment and the approach to collaboration on responsible investment and public

policy-related issues.

If your organisation did not respond to an applicable indicator, you will see a score of***.

Total Score

Band

24* (out of a maximum 30* from 1ottt indicators including the

following additionally assessed indicators: SG 07a, SG 18)

A

(1061) *** *** **'* (1061)

*** *** (1061)

***· *** (1061)

*** *** (1061)

*** *** (1061) /

*** "tri:rtr (1061)

*** *** (1061)

*** *** (1061)

*** *** (1061)

*** *** (1061)

-

-

0

tttrhe total number of indicators used to determine your score may be less than the full set of indicators above

as the assessment methodology discards your lowest scoring additional assessed indicators.

9 ASSESSMENT

I,, ' ,

~

ASSESSMENT REPORT j 2016

This chart summarises your scores across each section of the Strategy and Governance module

against the average scores for other signatories reporting in this module.

Ri.sponsibfe Investment Policy

Assurance /'.,., Objectives -& Strategies

c::J All Responses t:::l Your Score

Your Strategy and Governance module score has been compared to relevant peer groups in a series of

distribution charts below.

100

ao

60

-~ J;;;;:.

40

20

a E D C B A A+

10 ASSESSMENT


Your Strategy and Governance module score has been compared to relevant peer groups in a series of


Categoi;y: Asset <Dwner(27'.1) - _ _ _- - _ - _ - - - -_ - _ - -- --- -- - cc -- - - - - -- ~ - - - - - - -- =- -~ ~

100

80

60

-':>'s! e..-

40

20

0 E D C B A A+

100

so

60

-c 4-0

20

0 E D C B A A+

11 ASSESSMENT

i E

'


Your Strategy and G<:>vernance module score has been compared to relevant peer groups in a series of


100 -

80 -

60 --~

40 -

20 -

0 I I '

E D C B A A+

100-

80-

60-

-~ -40-

20-

0 J E D C B A A+

12 ASSESSMENT


INDIRECT - LISTED EQUITY INDICATOR This module is designed for investors who outsource some or all of their investment activities to

external investment managers and focuses primarily on the broad processes in place for selecting,

appointing and monitoring external managers with regards to responsible investment.

If your organisation did not respond to an applicable indicator, you will see a score of ***.

Total Score

Band

13

17* (out of a maximum 21 * from 7 indicators including the following

additionally assessed indicators: SAM 05b, SAM 05c, SAM 07b)

A

(159)

*** n/a (92) -*** *** {333)

*** *** (333)

*** *** (164) 0 *** n/a (170)

*** *** {333)

*** *** (333) 0 *** *** (333)

*** *-i:rft (164) 0 *** n/a (170)

*** n/a (170)

*** *** (333)

ASSESSMENT


: This chart summarises your scores across each section of the Indirect - Listed Equity module


Communication \,

\ \ \ \ t \ I

\ .,L.::;:.:;;;:;:,;;.;==- / \ I

Selection

'\,.._. ---.::=··µ· ........ ., ,.,, .. ··--···=· ·•··o,-,•·•·,;..f Monitoring ·--- - ·----.... · ---- -- - Appointment

C::J All Responses C::J Your Score

Your Indirect- Listed Equity module score has been compared to relevant peer groups in a series

of distribution charts below.

100

80

60

-= ·.e.-

40

20

0 E D C B A A+

14 ASSESSMENT




100

80

60

~ 40

20

0 E D C B A A+

100

-so

60

-~ -40

20

0 E D C B A A+

15 ASSESSMENT




100

80

60

-""" e.,..

40

20

0 E D C .B A A+

100 -

80 -

60 -

~ 40 -

20 -

0 I I I I I I E D C B A A+

16 ASSESSMENT


INDIRECT FIXED INCOME SSA

This module is designed for investors who outsource some or all of their investment activities to


appointing and monitoring external ma,nagers with regards to responsible investment.

If your organisation did not respond to an applicable indicator, you will see a score of 1:t:*:1:t:.

Total Score

Band

17

2* (out of a maximum 18* from 6 indicators including the following

additionally assessed indicators: No Additional Indicators)

D

(167)

*** n/a (146)

*** *** (258)

*** *** (258)

*** *** (258)

*** "ki:1:1.f (258)

*** *** (268)

*** *** (258)

*** *** (258)

*** *** (258)

------™

c=_.:_m

--

ASSESSMENT


This chart summarises your scores across each section of the Indirect - Fixed Income SSA module


Communication

\ \ \

\ \ \

\ \.

\ Monitoring '"'"""''""·"·"·

c::::J All Responses t:::l Your Score

·• Selection /

I

I I

ii I[ I

· · -~ · Appointment

Your Indirect - Fixed Income SSA module score has been compared to relevant peer groups in a

series of distribution charts below.

100

80

·60

-= li!.,...

40

20

0 E D C B A A+

18 ASSESSMENT




100

80

60

-~ 40

20

0 E D C B A A+

100

80

60

-~ -40

20

0 E D C B A A+

19 ASSESSMENT

~

1 I

I I I i I


Your Indirect- Fixed Income SSA module score has been compared to relevant peer groups in a


100

80

60

-= ~ 40

20

0 E D C B A A+

100

80

60 -~ ~ 40

20

0 E D C B A A+

20 ASSESSMENT


INDIRECT- FIXED INCOME CO.RPORATE (FINANCIAL)

This module is designed for investors who outsource some or all of their investment activities. to




Total Score

Band

21

2* (out of a maximum 1 s* from 6 indicators including the following

additionally assessed indicators:.No Additional Indicators)

D

(147)

*** 11/a {125)

*** *** (237)

*** *** {237)

*** *** {237)

*** *** (237)

*** *** (237)

*** *** (237)

*** *** (237)

*** *** (237)

--------~

~

ASSESSMENT

l i 1.


s This chart summarises your scores qcross each section of the Indirect - Fixed Income Corporate

(financial) module against the average scores for other signatories reporting in this module.

Overview

Communication Selection

Monitoring Appointment

Cl All Responses c::J Your Score

Your Indirect - Fixed Income Corporate (financial) module score has been compared to relevant

peer groups in a series of distribution charts below.

100

80

60

-= C.

40

20

0 E D C B A A+

22 ASSESSMENT


Your Indirect - Fixed lncome Corporate (financial) module score has been compared to .relevant

peer groups in a series of distribution charts below.

- - - -"Catego!'Y: Ass_et Owner (154~ _ _ " _ - - : ~ - --- - - - - - - - - .,, - -

100

80

60

-~ ~ 40

20

0 E D C B A A+

Size: US$Y-'4.9fJ ~illi9n_mt.lM]B6c~~~et&woersr"· -~-- -_ _- -_. =~-- -- -_,_ ,_cc - =~·_: -- - - , --~--:-~ "'- - ---- - ~-- -- -~-- - ~~ --2-' -- -- ~

100

BO

60

-= ~ 40

20

0 E D C B A A+

23 ASSESSMENT

ASSE~SMENT REPORT I 2016

Your Indirect - Fixed Income Corporate (financial) module score has been compared to relevant

peer groups in a series of distribution·charts below.

~ Sfgned_ P~t: 2008 =caoMvestm~p(ijan~gers &_½\ssef@~vnerst _- -~ :- -~ - ~ ::~~~---~-/ = -'----"-cc~ ;:-:-_ - - ~- -- - - CO-- T - - - - - - - -~ - - -- - - -

10-0

80

60

-= ~ 40

20

0 E D C B A A+

100

80

60

-~ ~ 40

20

0 E D C B A A+

24 ASSESSMENT

INDIRECT -- FIXED INCOME

SECURITISED



external investment managers and focuses primarily on the broad processes in place for S€?lecting,


If your organisation did not respond to an applicable indicator, you will see a score of ·tri:.r-1:r.

Total Score

Band

25


additionally assessed indicators: n/a)

D

(91)

*** n/a (78)

*** *** (118)

*** *** (118)

*** *** (118)

*** *** (118)

1<** ·*** (118)

*** **ir (118)

*** *** (118)

*** *** (118)

""""""'

-----~

---

ASSESSMENT

I ~ I'

I i i ~

I I

I ' j

I !

I \

I


This chart summarises your scores across each section of the Indirect - Fixed Income Securitised

module against the average scores for other signatories reporting in this module.

Overview

Communication

Monitoring

t::::l All Responses t::::l Your Score

i ! /

I ./

Selection

Appointment

Your Indirect- Fixed Income Securitised module score has been compared to relevant peer groups

in a series of distribution charts below.

100

80

60

-~ ~ 40

20

0 E D C B A A+

26 ASSESSMENT


VVITH Your Indirect - Fixed Income SSA module score has been compared to relevant peer groups in a


100

80

60

-~ 40

20

0 E D C B A A+

100

so

60

-e 40

20

0 E D c· B A A+

27 ASSESSMENT




100 -

80 -

60 -

40 -

20 -

0 I l E D C B A A+

100

80

60

-C. 40

I 20

L 0 E D C B A A+

28 ASSESSMENT


INDIRECT- PRIVATE EQUITY INDJC!e-r\ TOR This module is designed for investors who outsource some or all of their investment activities to




Total Score 14* (out of a maximum 18* from 6 indicators including the following,

· additionally assessed indicators: SAM 9b, SAM 9c)

Band

(31)

*** n/a l:,W~

(25)

***

*** -(206)

***

*** -(206)

*** *** = (206)

*** *** --(206)

(206) *** 0 *** *** ~ (206)

*** *** -(206)

*** *** ~ (206)

29 ASSESSMENT

. I 'l


This chart summarises your scores across each section of the Indirect - Private Equity module


Communication

\ \

Overview

,':,<;,\.",i,)"·, ... . \; ,,,...--

Selection

\ Monitoring -~-------<fAppointment

t:::l All Responses CJ Your Score

Your Indirect - Private Equity module score has been compared to relevant peer groups in a series


100

80

60

-~ 40

20

0 E D C B A A+

30 ASSESSMENT

ASSESSMENT REP.ORT I 2016

COMPARISON \i\/lTH PEERS Your Indirect- Private Equity module score has been compared to relevant peer groups in a series


C~tego_cy:_Asset0wner(12~)_, _ - - -_ _ - - ~ -~ _ _ -

100

80

60 -~ <> -40

20

0 E D C B A A+

100

80

60

-= e.-

40

20

0 E D C B A A+

31 ASSESSMENT

l I


Your Indirect- Private Equity module score has been compared to relevant peer groups in a series


Sigii~tl R_Rl: 2.oiitf(4ij 1nvestmenftMQl181]eis_&~¼\s_seT@wpetiL- / ___ " ~> ~--:_: ~ _-:_:- - -_ -- -

- -- - - s,.- ~ - - -- - - - ~ - - :: - - ~ - - -, - < ~ - ~ - r --

100-

80-

60-

-c 40-

20-

0 I I

E D C B A A+

100

80

60

-= ~ 40

20

0 E D C B A A+

32 ASSESSMENT


INDIRECT .... PROPERTY



appointing and monitoring external managers with regards to responsible investment. . .


Total Score

Band

33

14* (out of a maxi~um 18* from 6 indicators including the following·

additionally assessed indicators: SAM 9b, SAM 9c)

A

(36)

*** n/a -(25)

*** -(161)

*** ,_

(161)

*** -(161)

*** *** ~ (161)

*** *** (161)

*** *** -(161)

*** *** -(161)

*** *** ~ (161)

ASSESSMENT

I I

I

ASSESSMENT REPORT J 2016

This chart summarises your scores across each section of the Indirect - Property module against

the average scores for other signatories reporting in this module.

Communication

\ "/;\

\ \ \ \

Overview

\'>;,i"''r.,. __

Selection

Monitoring .-.-~-~--~'""Appointment

t:::J All Responses c::::J Your Score

Your Indirect - Property module score has been compared to relevant peer groups in a series of


100

80

60 -= ~ 40

20

0 E D C B A A+

34 ASSESSMENT

_ASSESSMENT REPORT 12016

Your Indirect- Property module score has been compared to relevant peer. groups in a series of


Categocy: Asset 0Wfl9lj (122J . _·· .... c-. -~ . • . ·=· . . .· - - - -- - - , - - - - - - -

100

80

60'.

-= e;..

40

20

h E D C B A A+

100

80

60

E D C B A A+

35 ASSESSMENT

~I . .

i

I

ASSESSMENT REPORT l 2016

Your Indirect - Property module score has been compared to relevant peer groups in a series of


100

80

'60

-= ce.

40

20

0 E D C B A A+

100

80

60

-= ~ 40

20

0 E D C B A A+

36 ASSESSMENT


DIRECT - LISTED EQUITY - ACTIVE

OWNERSHIP

OVERVHEVV

The table below provides an overview of your Listed Equity Active Ownership Band. This is based

on your score for engagement and (proxy) voting.

If applicable, you will see a separate score for .engag1

ements run internally, collaboratively and

through service providers. Your engagement score is based on your main engagement approach,

calculated using your reported information in indicator LEA 11. Your main approach is based on the

combination of the quantity and comprehensiveness of engagements and your role/involvement.

The Engagement score is not dependent on how you conduct your engagements and the top score ' . .

can be achieved regardless of who conducts the engagements. For more information please see·

the assessment methodology and detailed methodology.

The scores for each applicable engagement approach are presented in more detail in the following

pages.

Active Ownership Band

Engagement Band D

Score based on: Service Provider

Individual Engagement Band NA

Collaborative Engagement Band NA

Service Provider Engagement Band tf

(Proxy) Voting Band A+

37 ASSESSMENT


DIRECT - LISTED EQUITY - SERVICE

PROVIDER ENGAGEMENTS

This section looks at engagement activities undertaken on your behalf by service providers.

If your organisation did not respond to an applicable indic~tor, you· will see a score of i:rf:rk .

Type Of

Engagement

Total Score

Band

38

. ... ; g~\1/iceii'8R0~1DE~;gijGA~EME0

:.::::-:.;.::,.,~;\:~~;::;{\1:-r'x,:·. -·. ,. •

SERVICE PROVIDER ENGAGEMENTS


additionally assessed indicators: LEA 12)

D

{307) *** *** 1:cf:rf:r (307)

*** 1:ri:ci:( (307)

*** *** (307)

*** *** (307)

*** 1r1:rtr (307)

*** *** (307)

*** *ir*: (307)

*** 1~-1:r* (307)

*** *** (307)

*** *** (307)

-----"""""'

~

~

-w-=s

-

ASSESSMENT


This chart summarises your scores across each section of the Listed Equity - SeNice Provider

Engagements module against the average scores for other signatories reporting in this module.

Service Provider Processes

Communication ) General Processes

Outputs and Outcomes

c:::J All Responses c:::J Your score

Yo'ur Direct- Listed Equity- SeNice Provider Engagements.module score has been compared to

relevant peer groups in a series of distribution charts below.

100

60

40

E D C B A A+

39 ASSESSMENT


Your Direct- Listed Equity- SeNice Provider Engagements module score has been compared to


100

BO

60

-= :i;.....

.40

20

0 E D C B A A+

100

80

-60

-~ e;.

40

20

0 E D C B A . A+

40 ASSESSMENT


Your Direct- Listed Equity- Service Provider Engagements module score has been compared to


Slgne(f BRJ: 2008-(31 Investment Managers &Asset Owners) _ __ --_ - - : -_ -- - -- "" - - - -- - - - - - - - -- - - - - - -

100

80

60

-~ 40

10

0 E D C B A A+

~ R~gi6n: @c~::fni~ (~ii 'Investment Managers & ~ssel-GWnersJ - c:_- -, ___ - - _ - ~ - - ~- - ~-" ~--- - - - - - - - - - - - - -,;_.. -- - - -:::__ - - - - - - ~ 'Y -- -

1'00

80

60

-= f:;...

40,

20

0 E D C B A A+

41 ASSESSMENT

I I '


DIRECT - LISTED EQUITY - (PROXY)

VOTING

This section looks at how your organisation conducts (proxy) voting and shareholder resolutions

decided upon by you or on your behalf by service providers in relation to your listed equity holdings.


Total Score

Band

42


additionally assessed indicators: No Additional Indicators)

(363)

***

*** (603)

*** *** (616)

***

*** (616)

*** *** (616)

-~

m-~

~

ASSESSMENT


This chart summarises your scores across each section of the Listed Equity - (Proxy) Voting

module against the average scores for other signatories reporting in this module.

Process

c::::J All Responses c::::J Your Score

Your Direct Listed Equity - (Proxy) Voting module score has been compared to relevant peer

groups in a series of distribution charts below.

E D C B· A A+

43 ASSESSMENT

I. ,

I ~ '


Your Direct Listed Equity - (Proxy) Voting module score has been compared to relevant peer

groups in El series of distribution charts below.

;,;;iviti'Atfl< : ..

Band

100 -

80 -

60 -

~ 40 -

20 -

0 I I I I \

E D C B A A+

100

80

60

-= .i!,.;.-

40

20

0 E D C B A A,t-

44 ASSESSMENT

ASSESSMENT REPORT I 2016 .

\u'\f!TH Your Direct Listed Equity - (Proxy) Voting module score has been compared to relevant peer

groups in a series of distribution charts below.

100

80

60

-~ -40

20:

0 E D C 8 A A+

100

80

60

-~ 40

20:

(}

E D C B A A+

45 ASSESSMENT

ASSESSMENT REPORT J 2016

FURTHER READING / RESOURCES

PRI REPORTING· FRAMEWORK 2016

46

It is considered good practice to make policies or guidance documents covering your approach to responsible investment publicly available. ·

You might find it useful to train staff using the PRI Academy.

PRI encourages signatories to become active members of initiatives in addition to PRI.

PRI encourages signatories to engage with public policy makers in support of RI. You can find further information in 'The Case for Investor Engagement in Public Policy'.

Signatories use a range of verification and assurance methods, which is explored in a position paper available at www.unpri.org/report. The paper demonstrates how assurance can serve to build confidence in responsible investment activities, and more specifically in PRI Transparency Reports. ·

PRI scores signatories on the extent to which RI factors are considered when investment consultants are selected, appointed and monitored. The 'Aligning Expectations: Guidance for asset owners on incoroorating ESG factors into manager selection, appointment and monitoring' guide might be of interest to you.

PRI scores signatories on the number of selections made.


Leading signatories publicly disclose their RI activities annually or more frequently.

PRI scores signatories on the extent to which RI factors are considered when investment consultants are selected, appointed and monitored. The 'Aligning Expectations: Guidance for asset owners on incorporating ESG factors into manager selection, appointment and monitoring' guide might be of interest to you.

PRI s~ores signatories on the number of selections made.

PR! scores signatories on the number of selections made.



ASSESSMENT

47

ASSES$MENT REPORT I 2016

PRl scores signatories on the extent to which RI factors are .considered when investment consultants are selected, appointed and monitored. The 'Aligning Expectations: Guidance for asset owners on incorporating ESG factors into manager selection, appointment and monitoring' guide might be of interest to you.

PR! scores signatories on the number of selections made.

PR\ scores signatories on the number of selections made.


Leading signatories publicly disclose their RI activities annually or more frequently. ·





Leading signatories publicly disclose their RI activities annually or more frequently. ·



PRI scores signatories on the extent to which RI factors are considered when investment consultants are selected, appointed and monitored. The "Aligning Expectations: Guidance for asset owners on incorporating ESG factors into manager selection, appointment and monitoring" guide might be of interest to you.


It is considered good practice to have an engagement policy.

It is considered good practice for investors to play a significant role in the engagements conducted by service providers on their behalf. PRls document 11Allgning Expectations: Guidance for asset owners on incorporating ESG factors into manager selection, appointment and monitoring" offers further . information on this.

ASSESSMENT


Monitoring and/or discussing information provided by service providers engaging on your behalf is considered good practice.

Systematically sharing insights gained from engagemenfs with internal/external investment managers is considered good practice.

It is considered good practice to track the number of engagements the · organisation participates in.

Comprehensive engagements typically involve a range of activities. You may find chapter 3 of the 'PRI Introductory Guide to Collaborative Engagement' useful.

Leading signatories engage on a breadth of ESG issues.

Leading signatories publicly disclose their engagement activities annually or more frequently.

To enquire about a one-on-one session with the PRI team, please click here.

For further asset class specific information and resources, please click here.

48 ASSESSMENT

/


INFORMATION

GLOSSARY:

Not Applicable/NA: Generally means a module is not applicable to you as you have 0% assets

allocated to that asset class. For the incorporation modules and active ownership module this could

mean that you have a purely passive/thematic approach or vote/engage solely through external

managers.

Not Reported/NR: Generally means you hold <10% in that asset class and have chosen not to

report on it. In the case of the infrastructure module you may have >10% AUM but chose not to

report.

PEERING CATEGORIES

The table below explains the breakdown for each category.

- - C -~---

l - - - _""F"_---ci -

Peering Category Asset Owner Investment Managet ; -1

' All Respondents This includes a!I applicable signatories for that module. Including

·asset owners and investment managers.

Category This includes all asset owner This includes all investment signatories manager signatories.

Size This includes all asset owners This includes all investment in your applicable PRl fee managers in your applicable band, PRl fee band.

Signed PRI This includes all asset owner This includes all investment and investment managers in managers in your signature your signature year. year.

Region This includes all asset owner This includes all investment and investment managers in managers in your region, your region,

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

Is the Assessment Report made publicly available?

No. The assessment report is confidential and is only shared with the signatory.

However, Signatories are free to disclose their assessment reports as long as they follow the

guidance at the beginning of this report, ,

Why have I scored an E band?

The E band is awarded to signatories not doing any RI activities in an asset class even where the

holding in that asset class falls below the 10% threshold.

For further information on this please see the Assessment Way Forward document and the

assessment methodology on our website.

49 ASSESSMENT

QTON 7


STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS VICKI DUNNE MLA (CHAIR), MICHAEL PITTERSSON MLA (DEPUTY CHAIRt BEC CODY MLA,

ALISTAIR COE MLA

Inquiry into referred 2015-16 Annual and Finan.cial Reports ANSWER TO QUESTION TAKEN ON NOTICE

27 February 2017

Mr Coe MLA asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 27 Febrµary 2017:

In relation to Superannuation Provision Account:

MR COE: Sure. So with regard to that, that table, where it has got the actual of 458.1 million of course that is considerably higher than the budget so what actually happened to push it up by $200 million based on, or $220 million, based on the prevfous year's actual not just the budget?

Mr Nicol: Look, can I just take that on notice?

MR COE: Yes. Like 13-14, 101, then to 234 then to 458. Like, that is

Mr Nicol: We can give you a detailed-

Mr McAuliffe: I can give you a reconciliation.

~CElv~ ~ /550 ,0

.. 8 MAR 2017

Mr Nicol: Reconciliation. It is driven by the discount, the changes in the discount rates.1Sti!I the discount rate was lower over the year and-

MR COE: True but that is a doubling from '14-15 to 1 15-16 the actuaL net cost which is-

Mr McAuliffe: There are also some changes in what is happening in terms of the investment returns as well that is happening as part of it.

Mr Nicol: But we can give you detail about that.

Mr Barr MLA: The answer to the Memberis question is as follows:-

The line by line components of total expenses and revenue making up Total Net Cost of Services are detailed in the Superannuation Provision Account Statement of Income and Expenses on Behalf of the Territory on page 16 of CMTEDD Annual Report Volume 2.2. This information is presented in the following tables (Table 1 and Table 2) with supporting variance explanations:

Civic Square, London Circuit (GPO Box.1020) Canberra ACT 2601 T {02) 6205 0127 F {02) 6205 0432 E [email protected] Wwww.parliament.act.gov.au


Table 1- Variance Reconciliation between 2016 Budget Estimates and 2016 Actual Outcome

Budget Actual Variance 2016 2016

$,000 $'000 $'000 Note Income

Interest 7,173 3,560 {3,613) 1 Dividends 50,858 51,760 902 1 Distributions 70,941 56,698 (14,243) 1 Gains .on Investments 131,440 72,954 {58,486) 1 Other Income 688 907 219 1

.Total Income 261,100 185,879 (75,221)

Expenses Losses on Investments 0 83,557 83,557 1 Employee Expenses 399 474 75 Supplies and Services 4,955 4,523. (432) Investment Administration 5,000 6,085 1,085. 1 Superannuation Expenses 493,171 549,386 56,215 2

Total Expenses 503,525 644,025 140,500

Operating (Deficit) (242,425) (458,146} (215,721}

Table 1, Note 1 Total net investment revenue for the 2015-16 financial year of $96.2 million (an.investment return of 2.7 per cent), was $159.9 million or 62 per cent below the original budget estimate of $256.1 million. Investment returns for the 2015-16 financial year were low due to significant investment market volatility over the financial year with very low to negative returns on global share markets.

Table 1, Note 2 . Superannuation expense related to the defined benefit superannuation liability for the.2015-16 financial year of $549.4 million was $56.2 million or 11 per cent higher than the original budget estimate of $493.1 million. This was due to the financial impact of using a lower discount rate at 30 June 2015 of 3.66 per cent as compared to the average long term budget discount rate assumption of 6 per cent, increasing the superannuation liability valuation at 30 June 2015 and increasing superannuation expense for the 2015-16 financial year.

Table 2 - Variance Reconciliation between 2015 Actual Outcome and 2016 Actual Outcome

Actual Actual Variance 2015 2016 $,000 $'000 $'000 Note

Income Interest 5,579 3,560 (2,019} 1 Dividends 50,356 51,760 1,404 1 Distributions 72,458 56,698 (15,760} 1 Gains on Investments 260,251 72,954 {187,297) . 1 Other Income 1,176 907 (269} 1

Total Income 389,820 .185,879 (203,941)

Expenses Losses on Investments 77,733 83,557 5,824 1 Employee Expenses 561 474 (87)

Page 2 of 3

l ~

i i l

~

I if ! I !

I i I I l [

'

''.....·-:.

Supplies and Services 4,644 4,523 {121) Investment Administration 8,141 6,085 (2,056) 1 Superannuation Expenses 533,235 549,386 16,151 2

Total Expenses 624,313 644,025 19,711

Operating (Defi~it) (234,493} (458,146) (223,652)

Table 2, Note 1 Total net investment revenue for the 2015-16 financial year of $96.2 million (an investment return of 2.7 per cent), was $207.7 million or 68 per cent lower than the 2014-15 financial year net investment revenue of $303.9 million (an investment return of 10.2 per cent). Investment returns for the 2015-16 financial year were lbw due to significant investment market volatility over the financial year with very low to negative returns on global share markets.

Oyer the last 20 years to 30 June 2016, the SPA investment portfolio _has achieved an annualised investment return of CPI plus five per cent per annum, which is in line with the long-term target investment return objective. ·

Table 2, Note 2 . Superannuation expense related to the defined benefit superannuation liability for the 2015-16 financial

. year of $549.4 million was $16.2 million or 3 per cent higher than the 2014-15 superannuation expense of $533.2·million. This was due to both the growth in the superannuation liability as well as differences in the discount rate used for the financial year end superannuation liability valuations. The discount rate of 4.08 per cent at 30 June 2014 impacted on the superannuation expense for the 2014-15 financial year, and the discount rate at 30 June 2015 of 3.66 per cent impacted the superannuation expense for the 2015~16 financial year. The use of a lower discount rate increases the superannuation liability valuation and related superannuation expense.


Signature: /4k-;::.,, Mr Andrew Barr MLA Treasurer

Date: 7, ~. 17

Page 3 of 3

a

I '

I I

I '

i l

I

I l g

I I l I i

I I i ri I I " ' i '

I I !


STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS VICKI DUNNE MLA {CHAIR), MICHAEL PITTERSSON MLA (DEPUTY CHAIR), BEC CODY MLA, ALISTAIR COE MLA

Inquiry into referred 2015-16 Annual a�d Financial Reports

ANSWER TO QUESTION TAKEN ON NOTICE

27 February 2017

Mr Coe MLA asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 27 F�bruary 2017:

In relation to the ACT lnsurarce Authority (ACTIA) advisory board:

MR COE: Sure. Coming to the board members, what-if they are experts and have experience, well, it is a fair chance they have also got relationships in the industry and potentially conflicts along the way. How are they declared and managed when decisions are being made?

Mr Fletcher: That is a good question. Both of them do not have current links to, as I understand itand I would have to check-with insurers. They are certainly very well ·known in the industry, and that is why they are on our advisory board, but I would have to check whether there are any declared conflicts of interest. There certainly has not been any brought to my attention recently.


The ACTIA Advisory Board functions in accordance with the Insurance Management Guidelines 2005 (1)

Disa!lowabfe (nstrument D/2005-108. Clause 6 details the management of conflicts of interest:

6 Conflict of interest

A member of the Board who has a direct or indirect pecuniary or personal interest in a matter decided or under consideration by the Board-

(a) must disclose the nature of the interest to the Board; and(b) must not take part in any deliberations or decisions of the

Board on the matter.


Signature: Ak � Date: i.5.\1

Mr Andrew Barr MLA Treasurer

I

\ \ •.Gi

Q . . ' ·� .. · (),,·, ./ ,n��

-� . .

Civic Square, London Circuit (GPO Box 1020) Canberra ACT 2601 · · T (02) 6�05 0127 F {02) 6205 0432 E [email protected] W www.parliament.act,gov.au


QTON 8

QTON 9

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY FOR THE AUSTRALIAN .CAPITAL TERRITORY

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS VICKI DUNNE MLA (CHAIR), MICHAEL PETTERSSON MLA (DEPUTY CHAIR), BEC CODY MLA,

ALISTAIR COE MLA


27 February 2017


In relation to the Icon Water augmentation of Northbourne Avenue:

THE CHAIR: And how long is it until you need to do work to augment in Northbourne Avenue?

Ms Lewry: At the moment we have growth projected plans. I will have to tak'J on notice the exact timing of those growth projected plans but a lot of it will depend on when the demand comes online.

.~ce1i.,L' <1:v '~<>

Mr Barr MLA: The answer to the Member's question is as follows:- Q,9~0 ' 1 4 MAR 2017

(\ J...

Icon Water has advised growth forecasts which predict the North Canberra area will O . b\'Olp~xi~ ly 28,000 in Equivalent Population by 2036. This growth is made up of projected increases· ~ ts in the area as well as additional office and commercial users.

Equivalent Population is a methodology used by water utilities to assess one of the key factors of demand on their networks resulting from new and existing developments.

The majority of required augmentations in this area relate to the sewerage network. Current forecast growth projection would require the majority of the augmented infrastructure to be built in the next 10 to 15 years. The exact timing of the infrastructure installation is dependent on the actual growth that occurs and this is regularly reviewed.


Signature: ~ ~ Mr Andrew Barr MLA Treasurer

Date: to. 'J. t7

Civlc Square, London Circuit (GPO Box 1020) Canberra ACT2601 . T (02) 6205 0127 _F (02) 6205 0432 E [email protected] Wwww.parliament.act.gov.au


QTON 10


STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS VICKI DUNNE MLA (CHAIR}, MICHAEL PE1TERSS0N MLA (DEPUTY CHAIR), BEC CODY MLA,

ALISTAIR COE MLA

Inquiry into referred 2015-16 Annual and Financial Reports ANSWER TO QUESTION TAKEN ON-NOTICE

27 February 2017

Mr Coe MLA asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 27 February 2017:

In relation to the Murrumbidgee to Googong (M2G) pipeline system:

MR COE: Technica_lly what is the difference in altitude? What.is the actual climb that the pump needs to operate on?

Ms Lewry: I would have to take that one on notice. I do not recall the exact head pressure.

Mr Barr MLA: The answer to the Member's question is as foilows:-

lcon Water has advised the difference in altitude that the Murrumbidgee to Googong pumps operate on is 270 metres.



Date: <j.'$.r7

Civic Square, London Circuit (GPO Box 1020) Canberra ACT 2601 T (02) 6205 0127 F (02) 6205 0432 E [email protected] Wwww.pariiament.act.gov.au


QTON 11


STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLICA~COUNTS VICKI DUNNE MLA (CHAIR), MICHAEL PITTERSSON MLA (DEPUTY CHAIR), BEC CODY MLA, ALISTAIR COE.MLA

Inquiry into re~erred 2015-16 Annual and Financial Reports ANSWER TO QUESTION TAKEN ON NOTICE

27 February 2017

Mr Coe MLA asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 27 February 2017:

In relation to the Murrumbidgee to Googong {M2G) pipelin.e system: ~ t....

Ms Lewry: As of this morning we h~d 90.7 per cent in our dams. All our dams are '/~lifln ~~~~o~ scenario and the demand, if the demand does not increase, M2G, as I said, would 15 ~5sti,U storage that we would seek to use. Before we would move to M2G we would go from the Cotter-Bendora to the Googong Dam, th~n to Cotter Dam, and then we would probably seek to use the Murrumbidgee through the M2G system.

MR COE: What sort of timeframe are we looking at though?

Ms Lewry: I would have to take the exact timeframe on notice but I understand it is probably not within 20 years unless we see the largest drought that we have experienced as a climate here in the ACT.


lcon Water has advised the M2G is intended for use during drought conditions and assists Icon Water to meet the ACT Government's target of no more than 1 year in 20 in water restrictions. Should the Millennium Drought conditions repeat, the M2G and other infrastructure will allow the ACT to remain out of temporary water restrictions. . .

The M2G is run regularly to pump small volumes of water in order to maintain the infrastructure. Modelling indicates that the M2G is very unlikely to be used for water supplX purposes in the next two years due to current high storage levels. It is not possible to predict when the next drought will occur and require Icon Water to turn on the M2G; however, the probability of using the M2G over time is reflected in Figure 1 below. This indicates there is _a 50 per cent chance of running the M2G for water supply purposes in the next 11 years.


Printed an 100% recycled paper

;

! I

I j

!

Figure 1: Likelihood of Running the M2G

tOO¾

g-~---··-··-··--------------·-----·--·-·---·-·-·--·--·-·-------·------------·------$ 11~ ·,·------------·-·----·-------·-······--.. -·----------_, ______ ,, _____ _

a ~ 7a'P&+,-,---··"""'""""-''''''""'"'"-····················-·-"'""''''-'"""''"'"''"""""''""'"""'""'""'""'''""'"''"""'"''-"""'"-'""'"''""'"-·····"""'"''"'"'""'----·--·-···"'·-·""'""'"'"'"-""'""''"'"'-··-··-·

s

i-t~·-···-··--··--·-.. -·-----.. ---·- .. ·--------------·-=·-··---·-·······•·"-·•••"···-··-----~···-··-·:~~~~ ""' ~ $0'!Si--------------------------=---;,;_--~

i 4® ·i-.,..·-···--·--·-·----------·-·----·--·---,---·--::::..r.···-··-----~ ----~--··-··-·· ......... - ... ~-·-·-- · 'S 1£ 1;i - +"-···-·-·----·--·-···-............. _, __ ,, ______ ,,~-------···--------.. - ............ - .... --,-----·----....... _,

'I 2(1% ·)'•-•·---~,.,,.,.-.__,,,,,,._,,,-·M;;r"*'-'-·'"'""~"·•~'"~-••·,.,M .... ,_,.,M,.~•- ,~~~-•- ,,,.,,.~.,.~·--w.~---~,•~•~•-

L_': ,m.7 "1'* """.,;;;;; ~~~~,;;,, ;;;;; ,.;; • .;;.. ·;.;., ;;;;, .,;;,. ,,;,., ~- ,:;,. • ,.;;;c

. Approved for circulation to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts

Signature: ~.

Mr Andrew Barr MLA Treasurer

Date: f ,3,t"1

. Page 2 of 2

QTON 12


STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS VICKI DUNNE MLA {CHAIR), MICHAEL PETTERSSON MLA {DEPUTY CHAIR), BEC CODY MLA,

ALISTAIR COE MLA


27 February 2017


In relation to work undertaken to transferring water from the Googong to the Cotter System:

· THE CHAIR: Could you just remind us again of the cost of the M2G?

Ms Sachse: Sam Sachse, General Manager of Finance. It was for $140 million.

THE CHAIR: Actually that is more than I thought, yes. Also at the time, before we did M2G there was some work that was done to transfer water from Googong into the Cotter system through the pipe system. It had a name. I cannot remember what it was. How much did that cost and how often has that been used? It was about sort of changing the backflow so you could transfer all the way from Googong to the Cotter.

Mr Sachse: We would have to take that on notice.

THE CHAIR: It is really the cost of that project a,nd the number of times it has been utilised.


Icon Water has assumed the comment about the Googong into the Cotter system actually applies to the Cotter to Googong Bulk Transfer and Enhanced Cotter to Googong Bulk Transfer projects because it is not possible to transfer water from Googong Dam to the Cotter system.

The Cotter to Googong Bulk Transfer enables treated water from Strom lo to be transferred through the bulk supply network into Googong Dam. This enables the capability to balance the Cotter River dams and Googong storages. 21.2 Gigalitres was transferred from 2005-2011. The project had a ca pit.al cost of · $12.0 million ..

The enhancement project enabled supply of water from the Murrumbidgee River to Strom lo Water Treatment Plant. The treated water can then supply town demand or be transferred to Googong Dam. The ability to access Murrumbidgee water was crucial during the drought to avoid Stage 4 water restrictions.



11.9 Gigalitres was extracted and treated at Stromlo from 2006-2010. The project had a capital cost of $22.5 million.



Date: 13 · J, 11

Page2of2

QTON 13


STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS VICKI DUNNE MLA (CHAIR), MICHAEL PETIERSSON MLA (DEPUTY CHAIR), BEC CODY MLA,

ALISTAIR COE MLA

Inquiry into referred 2015-16 Annual and Financial Reports ANSWER TO QUESTION TAl<EN ON NOTICE

27 February 2017


In relation to Icon Water's capital and debt servicing costs:

THE CHAIR: Could I go back to the issues in relation to the capital expenditure over the past 10 to 12 years, including $140 million on M2G, the Lower Cotter Dam and the other project that we talked about that we cannot remember the name of? We are getting up to $600 million or $700 million in capital investment there. What is the service? What is the actual cost, the actual cost to ICON to service those capital investments?

Mr Sachse: We will take that on notice but all of these projects do not have much intensity in terms of an operating cost; so they would be quite small. The dam-

THE CHAIR: No, I meant the interest service on the borrowings. That would include the major upgrades, the Strom lo water treatment works which was probably the first of the big cap-X expenditures.

Mr Sachse: Strom lo would have been an investment made in 2003 after the bushfires. Is that the one you are after?

THE CHAIR: It would be 2003-04 or 2004-05.

Mr Sachse: Again I would have to take that on notice.

THE CHAIR: A rundown on the capital costs of all ofthose big projects and the debt servicing costs.


lcon Water has advised it has invested around $585 million (excluding the purchase of water licences as these have been sold) in the large water security projects. The debt servicing costs for the $585 million investment is around $22 million per annum assuming a 3.8 per cent interest rate.


Signature: ~ ~ Date: /If,!, 11 Mr Andrew Barr MLA Treasurer

Civic Square, London Circuit {GPO Box 1020) Canberra ACT 2601 T (02) 6205 0127 F (02) 6205 0432 E [email protected] W www.parliament.act,gov.au


QTON 14

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY FOR THE AUSTRALIAN·CAPITAL TERRITORY

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS VICKI DUNNE MLA (CHAIR), MICHAEL PETTERSSON MLA (DEPUTY CHAIR), BEC CODY MLA,

ALISTAIR COE MLA


27 February 2017

Mrs Dunne MLA asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 27 February 2017:·

In relation to long-term water security licences:

i,CElv~ ~ '""<

/<000 - g MAR 2017

THE CHAIR: Could I go to the issue of long-term Water security licenses in about 2004-05, maybe even earlier. ACTEW was actively purchasing water security out of Tantangera and other places. Now it seems that you ar~ looking at divesting yourself of some, at least, or all, of that. How much did you acquire? How much security was it? Some of it was long-term security and some of it was short-term security. I need to get back up to speed on that. Also, how much are you proposing to divest yourself, how much did you spend and what do you think the s91e price would be?

Ms Lewry: I will have to take on notice the exact amounts and the dollar figures. However, we have divested ourselves of our general security and high security water licences.

THE CHAIR: All of them?

Ms Lewry: All of them. So the general security water licence was divested· two financial years ago. The rationale is that when you actually want water, the general security licences often will not provide for it. We found it was a better return on investm·ent to sell them and divest. We then looked at the likelihood of calling on that water, calling on our high security water licence and the profits that we were making by selling that water on the market, because we have done so, versus the returns that we would get for selling them, and the projected climatic forecasts and what that would actually do to the cost of those assets moving forward. It made more sense from\an investment point of view to sell those licences late last year, which we did. And it always means if we want to call on the Tantangera scheme at a point in the future, we need to buy temporary water on the open marketplace.

THE CHAIR: So you on notice will be able to give the committee a breakdown on the purchase cost and also the income that you received from selling your access to the water? You made a profit on the sale of the long-term security licences? ·

Mr Knox: On the high security licences we purchased for $25 million and sold for $34 million, so we did make a substantial profit.

THE CHAIR: Over what period? About eight years?

Civic Square, London Circuit (GPO Box 1020) Canberra ACT 2601 T (02) 6205 0127 F (02) 6205 0432 E [email protected] W www.p~rllament.act.gov.au ·

· Printed on 100% recycled paper

I

I I !

Mr Knox: We might have bought them In 2010, 2009.

THE CHAIR: It was that recently? I thought it was earlier than that.

Mr Knox: Also,· because we did not use them during the year, we could lease those out and generate additional profit during the year. We will bring that back to the committee.


lcon Water has advised 22.1 Gigalitres of general and high security water licences were purchased between. 2008--09 and 2011-12 at a total cost of$4D.7 million.

Between 2015-16 an.d 2016-17 Icon Water divested these water licences for a total sale price of $46.1 million for a profit of $5.4 million.

Icon Water also generijted a further $7.2 million of revenue from selling the temporary water allocations attributed to these licences to the market each year.


Signature: ~ Mr Andrew Barr MLA Treasurer

Date: ,:. ~ .11

Page 2 of 2

standing committee on public accounts annual and financial ... · qton 04 27.02.2017 mr coe cmtedd...

Documents