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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 2 Hansard (28 February) . . Page.. 399 ..

MRS CARNELL (continuing):

Ms Follett talks about Optus. It is very interesting. Last night I was having a look through the old press releases about Optus and about the $500,000 over 10 years that Optus pledged to the medical school. In Ms Follett's press release there was not one mention of where the money came from; there was not one mention that the money was pledged because Optus actually owed four point something or other million dollars. Ms Follett was actually waiving, in the end, over $4m. There was not one indication in there that the money was coming from waived stamp duty. I do not think that is particularly fair.

I understand, from people in Treasury and so on, that under the previous Government there was a different approach to these sorts of arrangements. Ms Follett's approach was: Unless there was an absolute, up-front dividend to the ACT Government right there on the table, she said, "No; go away". She did not care what message we sent to business in this country and did not care one bit that there was no chance of any revenue as a result. It is not like we are saying no to revenue; no to any chance of any revenue. No State that has not restructured has got one dollar of stamp duty from this particular deal.

All this particular arrangement is about is a restructuring within CRA itself. CRA have moved ownership of particular wholly owned subsidiaries to others and so on. In any State that has not agreed to that, the restructuring has not gone ahead. Nobody has got any money out of this. On one side of the ledger you have a big zero - nothing; no revenue; no good messages; no jobs at all; and certainly not being a better corporate citizen or government citizen or a government that is interested in national benefits. On the other side you also have no money. On both sides you have no money - a big zero. On one side you have actual benefits; on the other side you have a big, fat zero. That is the reason we made the decision.

MS FOLLETT: I have a supplementary question, Mr Speaker. I would like to mention to the Chief Minister - she does seem unaware of it - that one of the reasons why the ACT is good for business is that we do not have the loan security duty that other States have, and that remains the case. I would have expected Mrs Carnell to put that into her answer. She certainly did not mention any benefit from this waiver of stamp duty.

Mr Humphries: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If you want a debate in question time, I can throw in a few bits as well. This is question time, where we ask questions and receive answers.

MR SPEAKER: I uphold the point of order. I am waiting for the supplementary question.

MS FOLLETT: Given that Mrs Carnell, in what she has said so far, has demonstrated that there are absolutely no jobs and no benefits to the Territory, I ask: What is the corporate restructure that is being undertaken by the CRA group?

Mr Kaine: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I draw your attention to standing order 119, which specifically states that a supplementary question shall not have a preamble. I suggest that you tell the Leader of the Opposition to ask her question.

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