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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 1 Hansard (2 February) . . Page.. 73 ..

MR OSBORNE (continuing):

I have now looked at the evidence about the future of ACTEW in public ownership and of the problem of unfunded superannuation and I am not convinced that her all-or-nothing approach is the correct one. I will vote against this legislation and I am opposed to any attempt to have a vote on it deferred. I take that view for many reasons, but first and foremost because I do not believe that something not urgent enough to be on the Liberal Party agenda before the last election has suddenly become urgent enough for other options to be considered.

I certainly oppose the sale of the natural monopolies of water and sewerage pipes. I think many speakers have spoken about that. The question of the ownership of the electricity distribution network was not so clear, and my decision is that it too should remain in public ownership. A decision on the sale of the retail arm of ACTEW should not be considered until we have the detail of the regulatory regime before us. The Chief Minister, given her record of deception on this issue, is not someone to whom I will be giving an open chequebook with which she can do as she wishes. The devil will be in the detail, and I will want to see that detail before making a final decision on that matter. I well understand that the competitive forces in the electricity market dictate that changes will have to be made to ensure that the electricity business in Canberra is run more efficiently, but I, like many other members in this place, have faith in ACTEW and the workers there.

Mr Deputy Speaker, because the Chief Minister chose to link the sale of ACTEW to the funding of the superannuation payments, something that I do not necessarily disagree with, I would also like to make a brief reference to the one issue that is causing me some unease. At the moment, any provision that the ACT Government makes for future superannuation payments, whether by an annual appropriation or with the proceeds of a major sale, is part of the consolidated accounts of the Government. There is absolutely nothing to stop a future government from using either the income from money notionally set aside to fund future superannuation payments or the capital itself for some other purpose. Someone, in their wisdom, Mr Deputy Speaker, has reminded me of how the national social service levy of one Menzies Liberal Federal Government was quietly forgotten by a subsequent Liberal Government led by the same man. What one Assembly passes into law, another one can overturn. That is a problem which we must address before appropriating any money from any source in the name of guaranteeing future superannuation payments to retired public servants.

I question as well, Mr Deputy Speaker, the whole notion of whether governments should be in the investment business. I am pleased that during my term as a member of this Assembly there have been positive returns on government investments, but I dread the budget that follows any collapse in stock markets. The question of the risk is one that I think this Assembly should be pursuing in the months ahead.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I believe that the best solution for this Assembly is to work together and to find out what the best solution is for ACTEW. My advice to the Government is: Pick up your dummy, bring your bat and ball back to the game, and work with us here in the Assembly to find a way forward for ACTEW, its employees and the ACT. To sum up, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will be voting against the legislation.

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