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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 3 Hansard (7 March) . . Page.. 642 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

Mr Speaker, as I just said, I believe that we would be derelict in our duties if we were to sell off ACTEW's assets. I believe that this Assembly would be doubly derelict if it did so on the total lack of evidence or genuine justification as evidenced by today's debate and the information this Government has not put on the table. Mr Speaker, we should put off this proposal until the Government comes back with a reasonable range of options that are fully argued and substantiated.

MR QUINLAN (5.26): Mr Speaker, I would like to speak very briefly on that amendment. I rise to support it because it is very logical. It quarantines asset sales from addressing the problem of the retail sector. I have to observe, though, that during the day we have had confirmation of the total ineptitude on that side of the house. The Treasurer, in an exchange while I was on my feet before, quite clearly indicated that he does not have a clue as to the asset structure of ACTEW. This follows a question without notice, a week or so ago, his answer to which showed that he did not have a clue where growth was going to happen within ACTEW.

This follows an appearance on ABC radio, about a week before that, in which it was apparent that he did not have a clue where the assets were going to end up and, in fact, assured us that there were no assets changing hands whatsoever. This is the man who is leading the Government's case, and if that is an indication of the competence of this Government in this business I think we should stop this process immediately. If we can place that much faith in the ACTEW board, then maybe we should be looking across this room at the moment at the ACTEW board, and not the Government, because this Treasurer seems to have not a clue about this particular exercise at all.

Debate (on motion by Mr Hargreaves ) adjourned.

MR HARGREAVES (5.30): I move:

Mr Speaker, a lot of vitriol and a lot of emotive words have been thrown around this chamber today, and I have been here for the most part, listening to it, and I notice that, unless members opposite have been glued to their television sets upstairs, they have been notably absent all day. I wanted to make that point. I make an exception, of course, for Mr Hird. Mr Hird has put in most of the day and I congratulate him. I think his colleagues could take a lesson from his behaviour. Mr Speaker, the reason I moved that the debate be put off for so long is that the Treasurer over there can now get a clue about the points just mentioned by Mr Quinlan.

Quite a few clues are missing. Perhaps he ought to go and get those clues and come back. I noticed his embarrassment earlier today when we talked about retail assets. Mr Speaker, there are so many questions that have not been answered. I, like Mr Rugendyke and Mr Kaine, have received a raft of information, but still not enough.

Mr Humphries: It never will be for you, John, will it?

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