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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 4 Hansard (7 May) . . Page.. 1061 ..

MRS CARNELL (continuing):

to use either money in the bank investments or borrowings, if that is what they choose to do, to fund a return on investment for ACT taxpayers. They have revenue, therefore they can pay back a debt. In fact, that is what they have done since self-government. Whereas the ACT has ended up with a bigger debt every year, ACTEW now has virtually no debt.

Mr Osborne: Just admit it. Do not pretend it is not true. Do not stand up and say there are no new borrowings.

MRS CARNELL: Mr Speaker, I am interested that Mr Osborne makes the comment about ACTEW. Certainly, in the interview I heard with Mr Perkins yesterday afternoon, he made the point that ACTEW had virtually no debt and could handle this quite easily and that it would not affect their investments in other projects. The press release ACTEW put out yesterday stated:

Mr Perkins said that it is proper for the Government as the shareholders of ACTEW to decide on an appropriate capital structure for the organisation. Any capital repayment or dividend flowing to Government is then available for the Government to use for the benefit of the community.

After a period of successful commercialisation, ACTEW is virtually debt free and is in a position where it can finance the restructuring within debt levels typical of other utilities.

Mr Osborne: Why did Paul Perkins say they could pass it on to consumers? Why would he say that? Why would Paul Perkins say yesterday that this could be passed on to the consumer?

MR SPEAKER: Order! Chief Minister, there is no need to answer that question.

MRS CARNELL: Mr Speaker, ACTEW will not pass on any increases in costs as a result of the capital restructuring. By their very nature, they cannot. We have a pricing commissioner who sets the price, a pricing commissioner who has made it clear that ACTEW can handle extra debt without it affecting, as he rightly says here, their cash generating capacity. Those opposite do not understand this.

MR WOOD: Mr Speaker, my question is to Mrs Carnell. Chief Minister can you confirm that in your 1997-98 budget the total amount to be spent on capital works is $28m less than Labor budgeted in 1994-95 and that you have cut total capital works spending by $10m on last year? Is it not a fact that, using the MBA's employment multiplier, as you have done before and which you quote this time in the budget papers, the cut of $28m results in the loss of 420 job opportunities in the ACT and that there will be another 150 job losses in the next year alone?

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