Hardly a day goes by without some reference to the levels of public debt engulfing us all, here in Tasmania, in Australia as a whole , in Greece and the Euro zone, just about everywhere.
There’s lots of scaremongering, loads of misunderstandings, heaps of inappropriate comparisons and deliberately misleading use of figures.
There’s lots of scaremongering, loads of misunderstandings, heaps of inappropriate comparisons and deliberately misleading use of figures.
The
following puts Tasmania in perspective with other States. The figures used are
the 2011/12 actuals for each state.
First
just a refresher on the terms to be used.
The
term debt usually refers to borrowings. Net debt is derived by netting off cash
and other highly liquid assets against debt. In some cases the derived figure
is a positive number (ie net debt is negative).
Financial
liabilities include borrowings but also trade payables, employee benefits such
as leave entitlements and most significantly, unfunded superannuation amounts.
Netting
financial liabilities against financial assets give a figure for net financial
liabilities. Financial assets include cash and deposits, equities (excluding shares
in government businesses) and debtors.
The
general government (GG) sector comprise government departments and agencies
whilst the total state sector (TSS) includes government businesses as well.
Most
media reports about debt and debt to GDP ratios here and abroad refer only to borrowings.
Broader financial liabilities are generally excluded.
The
Tasmanian Government often reminds us of our low net debt, by selectively referring
to the GG sector. The following shows how Tasmania compares.
Tassie’s
GG net debt was a negative $409 million or a negative $800 per capita.. ACT had a negative net debt of $7,400 per
capita, whilst NTers owed $7,000 per person.
(Note: a year later at June 2013 the net debt figure
is $16 million, a deterioration of $425 million over the 12 months. However the
position in all states deteriorated. Actual figures for all states are not yet
available at this stage.)
When
one looks at net debt across all the public sectors TSS as a whole, Tassie remains
in third lowest spot with $2,350 per capita. Chart 2 provides the detail.
ACT
is still the lowest (still with negative net debt) and NT the highest.
The
broader measure of net financial liabilities for GG sees Tassie moving to the
middle of the table, ahead of SA, ACT and NT. Chart 3 has the details.
Tasmania
has net financial liabilities of $12,000 per person. WA the lowest owed $5,800
per person and NT $26,200.
The
more realistic net financial liabilities measure for the entire public sector
(TSS) is shown in Chart 4.
Tasmania
slips a little further to have the second highest TSS net financial liabilities
at $21,600. NT had the highest at $30,000 and Victoria the lowest at $12,600.
Comparing
levels of debt and liabilities on a per capita basis can be a little
misleading. The calculation of GST relativities compensates smaller states for
less revenue raising capacity than larger states. Comparing debt and
liabilities across states relative to their gross state product GSP (in other
words their share of national gross domestic product) may give a more realistic
picture.
In
the case of net financial liabilities in the GG sector Chart 5 presents the picture.
Tasmania’s
net financial liabilities of the GG sector as a % of GSP are 25%. WA is the
lowest at 6% and NT the highest at 33%.
Looking
at net financial liabilities for the whole public sector TSS, Tasmania finally
makes it to the top of the table. Chart 6 presents the details.
Tasmania’s
net financial liabilities as a % of GSP are 45%. WA has the lowest at 14%.
The
composition of financial liabilities is an important consideration. Borrowings always
have a refinance risk whereas unfunded superannuation does not. It’s a liability
that will be discharged over the next 50 to 60 years. Whilst the present value
of the liability is extremely sensitive to interest rate fluctuations as we’ve
seen in previous posts, the annual commitment is much more certain. Chart 7
presents the proportion of GG total liabilities represented by
unfunded superannuation.
Tasmania's has the highest proportion of unfunded superannuation as a proportion of total liabilities for the GG sector at 78%.
Chart 8 presents unfunded superannuation for the whole public sector TSS.
Nearly
half of Tasmania’s total public liabilities (44%) relate to unfunded
superannuation.
If
one wishes to present Tasmania in the best light the measure chosen will be the
net debt in the GG sector on a per capita basis. Ms Giddings chooses this
measure when there’s a need to put a positive spin on matters.
But
Tasmania has
· A
proportionally higher than average borrowings outside the GG sector. In other
words government businesses carry more debt.
· A
proportionally lower than average amount of GSP per capita.
· A proportionally
higher level of unfunded superannuation as a % of total liabilities
None
of the above makes Tasmania a basket case. The differences merely highlight
Tasmania’s vulnerabilities. If anything it confirms that while comparisons between
states are interesting and informative, strategies based on achieving a certain
level of net debt or a certain ratio of net financial liabilities to government
revenue mask the simple need to focus on measures of realistic and sustainable
cash flows.
A
future post will review the fiscal strategies of the Government and the
Opposition.
Earlier
posts on this topic may be of interest:
Tassie’s
balance sheet Part 1 covering cash and debt in the government sector
Tassie’s
balance sheet Part 2 covering debt in the wider public sector
Tassie’s
balance sheet Part 3 covering debt and liabilities
Tassie’s
unfunded superannuation liability
nice and clear. excellent
ReplyDeleteI see Hydro alone is now $900mill in debt - $1,744 per head.
ReplyDeleteTasmanian energy crisis: Treasurer Peter Gutwein refuses to reveal power bill costs
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-16/tasmanian-treasurer-tight-lipped-on-energy-costs/7332448?WT.ac=statenews_tas
How has Tasmania debt moved since your article in July 2013 ?