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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 4 Hansard (8 May) . . Page.. 1148 ..

Mr Hird: On that point of order, Mr Speaker, I would say that you should use standing order 39. The Opposition continually interject on the Minister, who is endeavouring to answer their question.

MR SPEAKER: There is no point of order on that point, Mr Hird. I am sure the Minister is coming to the point that Mr Corbell was concerned about.

MR KAINE: Indeed I am, Mr Speaker. Before we talk about redundancies or job losses, we need, first of all, to establish that ACTEW is a very efficiently run organisation. As I was saying before I was interrupted, even after the price cap has been put on ACTEW's prices by the prices commissioner they are still expected to make $45m profit next year. If any organisation in any industry of comparable size in Australia is making a $45m a year profit, what justification would they have for firing people on the basis that they are not making enough money to pay them? The answer is that there is no such justification.

So we come to the nub of the question Mr Corbell asked me: Will ACTEW be firing people next year? The answer to that resides in the experience of ACTEW over each of the last three years. To my knowledge, in order to achieve efficiencies, they have offered about 50 redundancies a year for each of the last three years. I would expect that they would continue to do the same next year in their continuing search for efficiencies and to get their operating costs down. The two things, however, are totally unrelated. If you can argue that 50 next year are because of the price cap, then you have to ask what justified the 50 a year over each of the last three years. Mr Corbell is on the wrong track, as usual. There is no relationship between the fact that ACTEW may shed a number of people next year, on the one hand, and the fact that the prices commissioner has capped their retail prices, on the other.

I come to the question of whether I am in conflict with the chief executive. No, I am not. The chief executive is saying that they may put some people off next year. I am saying that they may put some people off next year, too, but not for the reason that Mr Corbell is advancing.

MR CORBELL: I ask a supplementary question. Mr Speaker, in my question I was not referring to normal redundancies. I was referring to additional jobs lost as a result of price increases, and that is what Dr Sargent was referring to also. So, Minister, you do seem to be in conflict with your chief executive. As you are, I ask you: Do Dr Sargent and the board of ACTEW enjoy the same level of support and confidence that you have so recently and so brilliantly displayed when it comes to the chief executive officer of ACTION?

MR SPEAKER: That is a very hypothetical question, Mr Minister.

MR KAINE: I think it is more than hypothetical. To satisfy Mr Corbell even more, if it is possible to satisfy him on this question - - -

Mr Hird: No, I do not think so.

Mr Corbell: Only because he has not answered the question.

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