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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 5 Hansard (6 May) . . Page.. 1534 ..

MR QUINLAN (continuing):

of an idea about. I want you to picture Michael Moore, as the leader, creating a positive commitment to the achievement of a common goal. I want you to picture Gary Humphries charming your clientele. I want you to picture Brendan Smyth as the dynamic decision-maker. I want you to imagine Kate Carnell overseeing the enterprise without a merchant banker or a high-price consultant in sight. I do not think so. But I digress. Let me return to the budget.

I have said that this budget is unremarkable yet disturbing. It is disturbing in that it is a calculated and very deliberate deception. Clearly, this budget swings on $300m capital repatriation from ACTEW, justified as an adoption of a recommendation of the select committee that examined options for addressing the Territory's mounting unfunded superannuation liability. I chaired that select committee, and I have to say that it is depressing to witness the degree of dishonesty in the misuse of the recommendations in this budget. It is cynical stuff and if the crossbenchers, who hold the balance of power in this place, do not see it as such, then the people of Canberra are poorly represented indeed.

My committee clearly demonstrated that there were several options for addressing the unfunded liability that did not involve the sale of ACTEW. The committee peeled away the misinformation and distortions and revealed the bleedin' obvious - that simply changing the form of your assets is unlikely, in itself, to make you rich overnight. The probable beneficiaries of the sale of ACTEW would have been bankers, lawyers and consultants. It was not going to be you, me or Jane Public.

In the course of the wider debate, one thing remained constant. Mrs Carnell was manic in her desire to flog it. Numbers changed to suit her stated reasons. Then stated reasons changed as they were successively debunked. Only the determination to sell held firm.

Mr Moore: I take a point of order, Mr Speaker. I believe Mr Quinlan is reflecting on a decision of the Assembly, a vote of the Assembly.

Mr Corbell: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was a completely frivolous point of order.

MR SPEAKER: Indeed. I do not uphold the point of order. It has been a broad-ranging debate and no doubt it will continue to be so. Please continue, Mr Quinlan.

MR QUINLAN: That is all right, Mr Speaker. We would do the same to him. I will go back a paragraph so that I regain my flow. In the course of the wider ACTEW debate, one thing remained constant. Ms Carnell was manic in her desire to flog it. Numbers changed to suit her stated reasons. Stated reasons changed as they were successively debunked.

Mr Moore: I take a point of order, Mr Speaker. Using the word "manic" with reference to a member of the Assembly is entirely inappropriate. Standing orders make it quite clear that that kind of approach is inappropriate.

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