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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 6 Hansard (1 September) . . Page.. 1634 ..

MR CORBELL: My supplementary question is again to the Chief Minister. Chief Minister, is it not the case that the scoping review of ACTTAB is no more than a rubber stamp which justifies the decision to privatise ACTTAB, not only because it relies on the recommendations to privatise the Northern Territory TAB but also because one of the individuals responsible for the report is an endorsed Liberal candidate?

MS CARNELL: Mr Speaker, that is just a sleazy question. I think it is very important for us to run through just a little bit of history here. Those opposite have said they would never support privatisation of anything under any circumstances.

Mr Stanhope: We did not.

MS CARNELL: Sorry, you have not said that? What have you said?

Mr Kaine: I take a point of order, Mr Speaker. Who is asking the questions around here, and who is supposed to be answering them?

MR SPEAKER: We could always leave the Opposition to discuss it among themselves.

MS CARNELL: Those opposite have said that they would never support privatisation of anything, no matter what. They have said that they would rather see ACT assets go broke than sell them.

Mr Stanhope: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That is quite clearly wrong.

MS CARNELL: No, you have said you would not support it under any circumstances.

Mr Stanhope: That is quite clearly wrong. The Chief Minister is not telling the truth.

MR SPEAKER: You will have an opportunity under standing order 47 to correct it at the end of question time.

MS CARNELL: Those opposite have said that they would not support privatisation under any circumstances. All we are seeing from those opposite now is them trying to justify their own position. When it came to the Milk Authority report, those opposite got cross because we had done it internally, we had not had an external consultant and they did not like the outcome. Now they are suggesting they do not like an external consultant - any of them so far - simply because they do not like the outcome.

I am advised that the original legal consultant for the PKF team was Corrs Chambers Westgarth but the ACTTAB board believed that there may have been a perceived conflict of interest so a local firm was then added. Mr Morison was not an endorsed Liberal candidate at that stage. In fact, I do not think there was even any view that he was even slightly interested at that stage. Those opposite suggest without any evidence whatsoever that the consultants involved are not professional and do not do their work to the highest possible standard. That is what Mr Corbell just said. He said that this group were just producing whatever we wanted; that they were not professional consultants. That is something that he really should be willing to say outside this place if he has any evidence at all of that. The fact is that he does not have any evidence, Mr Speaker.

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