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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 4 Hansard (20 April) . . Page.. 1006 ..

Mr Stanhope: Questions. Suspicion. Lack of trust.

MR HUMPHRIES: No, Mr Stanhope, it is not questions; it is out-and-out criticism. In fact, it is an attack which is little short of ferocious when the process is barely under way. We had a press release from Mr Corbell, for example, just a few days ago when we announced the exploration of a merger through a working party with New South Wales, saying that this is privatisation by stealth and the decision is, to quote Mr Corbell today, "all sewn up".

I have to ask members to ask themselves the question: What exactly is the ACT Government - - -

Mr Corbell: You are misrepresenting me.

MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Deputy Speaker, I heard members with a fair degree of silence. I would ask for a little bit of - - -

MR DEPUTY SPEAKER: The debate has been conducted in relative silence and should continue in that way.

MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Deputy Speaker, the fact is that the process has to go somewhere from here. It has to be a process of exploring options. The Government has laid its cards on the table in the clearest, most transparent way it can and we still have people crying all sorts of things, ranging from "Privatisation by stealth", to "You've made up your mind already", to "You're selling the Territory down the river", to everything under the sun. Members clearly do not have any interest in this debate being conducted in a fair way. Their only interest, at least as far as those opposite are concerned, is in making sure that the Government simply has to wear the fact that the Opposition will criticise whatever it puts forward without any constructive element in its approach.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I think the words of the Canberra Times editorial of last Saturday sum up pretty well just what kind of position the ACT is in at the present time. I quote from that editorial:

The editorial goes on to argue that there are very significant drawbacks to that arrangement and suggests that this proves that, in fact, as a second-best option, the first and best option ought to have been the privatisation of ACTEW, as proposed last February. Then it goes on to point out:

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