Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Canberra Times . . Page.. 843 ..

(4) On the Committee presenting its report to the Assembly, resumption of debate on the question “That this Bill be agreed to in principle” for both the Electricity and Water (Corporatisation) (Consequential Provisions) Bill 1995 and the Electricity and Water (Corporatisation) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1995 be set down as orders of the day for the next sitting.

(5) the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders.

Mr Speaker, a portion of this debate may focus on the issue of open and consultative government. ACTEW, like Acton before it, needs open, well-informed debate and consultation with government and non-government organisations, researchers and the community. ACTEW must have the input of all sectors of the community to ensure that it continues its great work as one of Australia's most forward-thinking, socially just and environmentally sustainable organisations.

Mr Speaker, several weeks ago Kerrie and I met with the Chief Minister to discuss an issue other than ACTEW. The content of those discussions is directly relevant to this debate. At that meeting we were told that we, the Greens, were irrelevant to the Government because the Government had the numbers. I guess that only Mr Osborne and Mr Moore know the truth of those remarks. Mrs Carnell made the point that if we wanted open and consultative government we would have to be more cooperative. It was our choice. If we caused problems for her Government there would be no consultation and no openness. That is consultation, Liberal Government style. It is no wonder that community groups are fearful of their future.

Whether through so-called political strategy, or through sheer incompetence, we have heard virtually nothing about ACTEW that seeks to constructively inform. We have had promises of information. We have had promises of comprehensive briefing papers on all issues surrounding ACTEW. We never received them. We received from the Chief Minister's office a three-page double-spaced document in 16 point on the benefits of corporatisation. It was hardly inspiring. We asked for the information in the Assembly. Mr De Domenico said that it was on its way. Instead, we got the legislation.

Then we were offered briefings; but the briefings were about selling us a product, not informing us of the merits and drawbacks of corporatisation. If we had wanted ACTEW propaganda we could have read it in the expensive ads in the Canberra Times. In some ways the media was more informative than our lengthy briefings. We were told that, without corporatisation, ACTEW would not be able to trade across the border. That is not true. We were told well into the debate that if we did not corporatise it would cost millions of dollars and many jobs. It is not possible to ascertain the truth of this, as, to my knowledge, there has been no comprehensive cost-benefit analysis and no real comparison with other models around Australia or overseas. In short, there has been a lot of lobbying, a lot of advertising and a lot of rhetoric; but there has been no well-informed debate.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .