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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 9 Hansard (19 November) . . Page.. 2671 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

It is a fact that some people are not prepared to look at the sale of ACTEW on its merits. They need to look at the sale of ACTEW not on the merits surrounding the sale, but on the need to meet some other policy imperative, some other financial imperative. That is just nonsense. It is just nonsense that you would deal with an asset of this order without a full inquiry or investigation as a basis to meet a completely dissociated other policy agenda, namely, the superannuation liability. That is just not tenable. It is not tenable that we should make that sort of decision, that sort of judgment, without every member of this place having an opportunity to determine whether that associated policy issue cannot be better dealt with in some way other than by abandoning our major public asset.

It is on that basis that Mr Rugendyke and Mr Osborne have expressed their willingness and their desire for a select committee to look at the superannuation liability. In some quarters there has been a disinclination for this Assembly to look, through its committee process, at any aspect of the sale of ACTEW as an isolated issue. The Labor Party rejects that position. We believe that the establishment of this select committee would give us an opportunity to look at the superannuation aspects, which are now frightening the Government to death, and which are of concern to the Osborne Group, Mr Rugendyke and Mr Osborne.

As well as that, however, it does allow us, if we are going to the trouble of establishing a select committee, the opportunity, which we should take - there is no reason not to take the opportunity - to look at other aspects of the sale of ACTEW at the same time. Why would you not do that? What possible justification can there be for not even opening your mind to the arguments for the sale of ACTEW, your No. 1 asset, the asset that is close to the lives of and has a very firm place in the hearts of most Canberrans?

Canberrans do not want ACTEW sold. They do not want ACTEW sold. We know that. We all know that. Yet we are prepared to go ahead and approve the sale of ACTEW without looking at even the intellectual or firm arguments for why you should not do it. We need, at least through this process, to debunk the myth that there is only one way to settle the superannuation liability, namely, through the sale of that sterling asset of ours. It is just a nonsense to allow the scare campaign conjured up on superannuation to go unanswered. It is just a scare campaign; we know that. There are other methods. No other jurisdiction in Australia has felt the need to go around flogging off successful public assets in order to meet their superannuation liabilities. No other jurisdiction in Australia has felt that need. No other jurisdiction in Australia has gone weak at the knees, has lost its bottle, has thrown up its hands and said, "We can't manage".

Ms Carnell: Yes, they have; all of them have.

MR STANHOPE: They have not done so. None of them have done it. It is only this weak-kneed Government that sees no way forward, that is prepared to run a callow scare campaign as a basis for justifying the sale of that asset.

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