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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 7 Hansard (24 September) . . Page.. 2162 ..

Mr Corbell: Nonsense, what nonsense!

MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Corbell, rather predictably, says, "Nonsense". I want to refer members to an article which appeared in the Canberra Times on 28 June this year about the Labor Party conference in June. It was reported that there was, apparently, a very extensive and very acrimonious debate about privatisation. Mr Speaker, I want to quote a couple of paragraphs from the report. I gather that the journalist from the Canberra Times, Kirsten Lawson - - -

Mr Stanhope: I cannot remember your being there, Gary, but do not let the truth get in the way.

MR SPEAKER: Order, please! This debate, to date, has been conducted in relative silence from interjections; I would like it to continue in that way, please.

MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Speaker, the article in the Canberra Times reads:

Assembly Member Wayne Berry was alone among his parliamentary colleagues in opposing privatisation outright. His five Assembly colleagues, led by Treasury spokesman Ted Quinlan, supported the party's policy platform, which leaves the door open to privatisation in certain circumstances.

Mr Quinlan said while he was opposed to the privatisation of public assets, particularly those that provided essential services -

note the words "essential services" -

the party had to take account of the "practicalities of the debate".

He went on to outline why some parts of ACTEW ought to be considered differently from other parts of ACTEW. He is quoted here as saying:

If debate becomes all or nothing, we could end up with nothing.

The report goes on to point out that Mr Berry, however, triumphed in that particular contest and effectively amended or overruled part of the party platform to absolutely bar any kind of support for privatisation. Mr Speaker, the members of this place who sit opposite - the ones we can see here: Mr Stanhope, Mr Quinlan, Mr Hargreaves, Mr Corbell and Mr Wood - got up in their party conference in June and argued that some forms of privatisation were acceptable. What sort of privatisation do you think they were referring to? Privatisation, perhaps, where - I am quoting something here; I wonder what I am quoting from - "the entity does not perform a role central to the functions of government, where disadvantaged peoples would not be negatively affected by the privatisation, where there is a demonstrated public benefit in any such sale"?

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