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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 7 Hansard (24 June) . . Page.. 1935 ..

MR WHITECROSS (continuing):

from ACTEW. Just because the Government says in the budget papers and in press releases that it is not borrowing does not mean the argument holds water, though. Mrs Carnell obviously believes that just because her spin doctors tell a story it must be true. However, the committee, as was the case last year, had no other option. On all the information presented to it, it had to conclude that the dividends from ACTEW were just another form of borrowing. In its response to the report, the Government says:

... if borrowing were used by ACTEW to fund any part of the repayment, it is in the community's interests ...

They are having it both ways. They are trying to say, "We are not telling ACTEW to borrow; but, if they do borrow, it will be in the community's interests". ACTEW may have to borrow; it is not simply borrowing on behalf of the Government. The answer, of course, is yes; ACTEW would not have to borrow if it were not to meet this dividend imposed on them by the Government, a dividend which reduces ACTEW's capacity to make new investments and to expand their business, which is what they ought to be doing. During the ACTEW corporatisation debate on 20 June 1995, the Government repeatedly said that it would continue to be the owner of the corporation, that the people of the ACT would continue to be the owners. Surely, if ACTEW borrows, the people of Canberra are borrowing. There is no other conclusion. In the ACTEW corporatisation debate we were told that the reason they were corporatising it was to allow ACTEW to get on with the business of running its business. But what has happened? The Government have turned ACTEW into a milch cow to fund their budget deficit.

Mr Speaker, rather than addressing the issues associated with the deficit, we have seen elaborate tricks to disguise the borrowings necessary to fund the deficit. The Government has deliberately attempted to avoid scrutiny all year. The budget papers again demonstrate the Government's contempt for the estimates process. They have not provided the level of comparability and the level of information necessary. The Government have deliberately truncated the process of scrutiny. In 1995-96 the Estimates Committee made recommendations about the period that should be allowed for scrutiny by the Estimates Committee. This Government has deliberately brought down the budget according to a timetable which has limited the opportunity for scrutiny. Their lack of commitment to Assembly committee processes and to scrutiny is on the record for all to see.

In this response, they have shown their continuing contempt for the committee process. As was the case last year, they have agreed or agreed in principle to a whole raft of recommendations; yet, as was the case last year, we can confidently expect that they will do nothing about actually implementing any of those recommendations, because, as far as they are concerned, agreeing in principle is the end of the matter; they can then put the report on the shelf and forget about it. That is not good enough. Labor's charter of financial integrity gives a genuine commitment to the people of Canberra that Labor will not treat the Assembly, its laws and its legitimate committee processes with the contempt that the Carnell Government has held the Estimates Committee process in year after year.

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