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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 1 Hansard (2 February) . . Page.. 44 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

Third is the way in which the Government has tried to run this debate. It has become evident that the Government's contribution to this debate is characteristic of the flawed way in which it does business across all areas. The sloppy attention to detail, the quick grab, the selective use of consultants' recommendations, running with the biggest available figure, the most emotional threat, and then the personal attack on those who do not accept the line - these are the tools the Government has used to press its less than substantial case. The fact that they also characterise the style of this Government across its operations - the decision, at times perhaps a promise, in search of a justification - in itself brings a singular importance to this debate.

But the compelling reason that establishes the importance of this debate lies in what the parties to it stand for. Make no mistake. When the rhetoric is cast aside, when the numbers are put to one side, when the light of debate throws the arguments into sharp relief, there is a clear and evident difference in what each of the main parties stands for in this debate. Labor stands for the protection of the community's interests. Labor stands for the saving of local jobs. Labor stands for the protection of small business in Canberra. Labor stands for the provision of an efficient supply of quality essential services at fair prices. Labor stands against the sale of ACTEW, and does it proudly. The Government has clearly demonstrated it stands for none of this.

Mr Speaker, Labor has consistently rebutted the arguments put by the Government to justify its intention to sell ACTEW. But in rebutting those spurious arguments we do not deny the value of ACTEW to the ACT economy and to the ACT community. That is the very point of the debate. As the ACT's largest corporation, as a major employer, ACTEW deals in big numbers in this town. It means big profits and it has meant consistently big dividends to its owners, the people of Canberra.

Of course, the exact worth of ACTEW has been the subject of some discussion during the public debate, and the Chief Minister brings it up again today. The Australia Institute, in its report "The Privatisation of ACTEW", used consistent accounting methods to assess the value of the corporation in public ownership. The value the institute put on it, on a best estimate basis and perhaps somewhat conservatively, is that ACTEW is valued at more than $1.7 billion. This is more than the Government would have us believe ACTEW is worth to the market. But the Government's valuation comes from mistaken conclusions reached by its consultant, ABN AMRO, applied by the Government to make the corporation's current financial position look as bad as possible and the benefits of privatisation look as large as possible.

The Government's intention was to build a case that would sustain its decision to sell. This was not a case of an emerging problem driving the Government to an inevitable solution. That is the essential flaw in the Government's approach to the entire issue. It took the decision, albeit only after leading the people of Canberra to believe, in the election campaign, that it had no such agenda, and then it sought to justify it. And the justifications available are not strong, and in the event they are not, and will not be, sustained. So the Government, as is its wont, was selective in the figures it chose on which to base its justification, as evidenced by the use of the ABN AMRO valuations.

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