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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 4 Hansard (22 April) . . Page.. 1160 ..

MS CARNELL: Mr Speaker, there are actually two questions there. One is with regard to Bruce Stadium and one is with regard to ACTEW.

MR SPEAKER: The Bruce Stadium one can be ignored because it is not part of the original question.

MS CARNELL: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I can guarantee that the ACT representative on the working party will take everything into account that is relevant to the valuation of ACTEW and to the best interests of the Territory. With regard to valuations of ACTEW, though, recently I wrote to Mr Quinlan, as chair of the Chief Minister's committee, with regard to a valuation of ACTEW that those opposite embraced in the ACTEW sale debate, and that was the Australia Institute's valuation. The Australia Institute, of course - and those people put it on the table, Mr Speaker - claimed that ACTEW was worth $1.7 billion, and that was one of the reasons why we must not go ahead with the sale. They put that to the crossbenchers, Mr Speaker.

So, Mr Speaker, I wrote to Mr Quinlan asking Mr Quinlan for his okay to add that valuation into our balance sheet. Fairly obviously, if Mr Quinlan and that side of the house believed that was the valuation that should have been used and, really, we were losing money by thinking about going to the market at $1.1 billion or $1.2 billion when it was really worth $1.7 billion, then Mr Quinlan would have no trouble in putting $1.7 billion as the valuation into our balance sheet. Of course, Mr Speaker, that would have wiped out our operating loss in one go and was truly stupid. But, guess what, Mr Speaker? Mr Quinlan wrote back and said, no, he did not think that was such a good idea. It was not such a good idea now, Mr Speaker, but those on that side of the house were quite happy to get up and argue that $1.7 billion was actually the valuation during the debate. In other words, Mr Speaker, they misled this Assembly. They misled this Assembly. They did.

Mr Corbell: I take a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Chief Minister knows very well that the use of that term is unparliamentary.

MS CARNELL: Mr Speaker, I have not used the name of any person and it has been ruled on before.

MR SPEAKER: No, sorry, Chief Minister. No, it has been ruled on before. It has been ruled that collective criticism or collective words of that nature are also out of order because it will only prompt each member to stand up and ask for an individual withdrawal. We have been through this before, please, tempting as it may be, madam.

MS CARNELL: Mr Speaker, I withdraw any imputations with regard to misleading.

Mr Berry: I would like to thank the Chief Minister. Thank you.

MR SPEAKER: I beg your pardon?

Mr Berry: Just, thank you.

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