Page 1844 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 15 June 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Berry: Tony De Domenico used it first.
MR HUMPHRIES: We did not introduce legislation to deal with this principle. We did not bring forward legislation to make sure that any question of privatisation of this particular government corporation should be ruled out. The question has to be asked: Why is it that Mr Berry feels that he needs to entrench some arrangement in place to prevent the privatisation of this body? Why is he acting to preclude someone from taking these steps?
Mr Kaine: Particularly when they had advice not long ago that they should privatise it.
MR HUMPHRIES: Indeed. Is he trying to pre-empt his government advisers, hoping that they do not eventually persuade enough of his colleagues to change their minds and to support privatisation? Is he worried that the Opposition might become the government very soon and make that happen? Not according to his own rhetoric. If there is one thing that Wayne Berry stands against in this place, it is privatisation. Now, that is great. It might not be in accordance with his colleagues on the hill; it might not be in accordance with most other progressive Labor thinking in this country, if such a thing exists. It might not accord with moves to do with Qantas, or the Commonwealth Bank, or maybe Telecom in the future. Who knows? It does not accord with any of that; but it does accord with Mr Berry's own personal philosophy, and the philosophy seems to be under threat from some quarter that we have not been told about. Someone is trying to privatise his precious TAB and we have not been told who. I think, Madam Speaker, we ought to know who, before we support this cockamamie legislation that has been brought forward by Mr Berry.
He has said that he wants to ensure that ACTTAB is properly managed, but he will not say, despite repeated invitations from this side of the chamber, that it is not being properly managed at present. Mr Berry, answer this question: Is ACTTAB at present being run satisfactorily? If it is not and if you come to this place and show evidence of it not being run satisfactorily, I assure you that if evidence is present we will support you in making some change to affect the management of ACTTAB, whether it is changing the membership of the ACTTAB board or its structure or whatever. We will support you if we can see evidence of bad management. But is there bad management? The answer clearly is no, there is not. By the silence of the Government, ACTTAB clearly is being run at the moment very adequately, if not, very well, and in those circumstances you have to ask why this Government is proceeding with this course.
Mr Berry mentioned, not in his substantive speech but in response to the motion moved by Mr De Domenico just a moment ago, that there is an element of instability in ACTTAB's operation. Where is the element of instability? What is the instability in ACTTAB at the moment? The only instability facing ACTTAB is this legislation, and the Minister could easily remove that by pulling the legislation off the notice paper. He might also allay it by acceding to Mr De Domenico's motion and having this matter referred to an appropriate committee. Mr Berry has an onus on him, Madam Speaker. He has an onus of proving the basis on which he wants to bring this legislation on, and that should be either evidence of the instability that he has referred to or evidence of bad management. Put up or shut up. If you cannot show those things you have a moral responsibility to forget this legislation, to trash it.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .