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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 1 Hansard (29 April) . . Page.. 161 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

ignoring the significant investment the community has made in developing the asset to the level that it is then at. Mr Speaker, you have only to look at the assets that are currently in place in the Territory. Totalcare, ACTEW and ACTTAB are all very profitable, effective Territory-owned corporations that have been developed over time through expenditure from the public purse.

Mr Speaker, I want to place on the record from the beginning that the Labor Party does not have a blind, ideological approach to the issue of privatisation. Indeed, unlike the Liberal Party, the Labor Party has a clear platform which outlines the principles that we will apply when considering the issue of public or private ownership. That is not something that those on the other side of the house have. Indeed, it is not something that I have seen any other members in this place present to the people of Canberra. But the Labor Party has a clear set of principles which we use to assess whether an asset should be retained in public hands or whether it is not appropriate for that asset to be in public ownership. We will use those criteria, as we have always used them, in relation to the assets that are of concern to the community at the moment.

Mr Speaker, the Carnell Government is presenting privatisation as a virtually inevitable consequence of changing circumstances in national markets. In the case of ACTTAB, a review has been commissioned to develop a strategy for restructuring the corporation and also to examine different ownership models. This, Mr Speaker, is surprising. We know that it has surprised many people in the community, and it has definitely surprised the 120 or more employees of ACTTAB, because on no occasion throughout the election period did this Government make any mention of a need, or even a potential need, to restructure or assess the structure of ACTTAB. On no occasion whatsoever did they give any indication to the electorate that that was their intention. Mr Speaker, for that reason alone - as well as in relation to Ecowise, which the Chief Minister has now clearly stated on the public record is up for sale and that she supports that decision - we believe it not only important, but central, to our role as elected representatives that we debate this issue this afternoon.

Mr Speaker, I would like to outline briefly the current circumstances which surround the ability of the Government to dispose of a Territory-owned corporation. Currently, two shareholders, each holding a 50 per cent voting share, can vote to dispose of a Territory corporation and then provide the Legislative Assembly with an explanation of why they have decided to do that. Mr Speaker, there is no requirement for the Assembly, for the people - for those who actually own the asset - to give their consent to any sale of the asset which they own. We believe that that is wrong. We believe that that is inappropriate. For that reason, Mr Speaker, we believe that there needs to be another way of doing it. To allow two people to decide the fate of an asset which is owned by every single member of the Canberra community is not open, accountable or, indeed, representative government. Clearly, in a representative democracy such as ours, we need to ensure that the responsibility is restored to the community through the Assembly when any decision is made on the future ownership structure of assets which have been paid for and which are owned by the community.

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