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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 3 Hansard (9 March) . . Page.. 826 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

the board of ACTEW told this Assembly, and through this Assembly the people of the ACT, in his annual report that ACTEW had coped well with competition. Mr Service's words were that ACTEW was coping well with competition.

Mr Service went on to express his confidence in the future. This was before this proposal was once again given the breath of life. That is the attitude of the chairman of the board. We are now running away from that. I look forward to the chairman of the board in some way formally repenting from the position that he put in his annual report; a report which was tabled in this place, which was accepted by members in good faith and which is apparently now a load of bunkum.

According to Mr Service and the board of ACTEW, its annual report was not to be trusted. His statement that ACTEW was coping well with competition was not an expression of his real view. So what are we to believe? Now we have this charade by the Government in not even attempting to put any flesh on the bones of this proposal and in leading this community blindly down the path of privatisation. That is what this is all about. That has been the case for the last two years, and nothing has changed. It is quite disgraceful for the Government to advance this proposal without seeking to provide any of the detail which we need for a responsible decision.

MR HARGREAVES: (4.52): I was prompted to rise because of an interjection the Treasurer, Mr Humphries, made in the course of Mr Stanhope's speech. Mr Stanhope was complaining that we had not seen a cost-benefit analysis and that we had not seen the numbers. We have heard a hundred million dollars bandied about. The Treasurer said across the chamber, "Why do you want to know that?". I thought he was not being serious, but apparently he was.

We want to know the cost-benefit analysis because this chamber is in charge of the approval process. This is not a consultative issue; this chamber is the approving authority for this proposal. I could not believe the arrogance of such a comment from Mr Humphries. I cannot believe he could honestly say to another member of the Assembly, "Why would you want to know the cost-benefit analysis?". It is something that is going to cost hundreds of millions of dollars.

MR TEMPORARY DEPUTY SPEAKER: You know that interjections are grossly disorderly, Mr Hargreaves.

MR HARGREAVES: I do, Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker. I would have risen on a point of order had my jaw not hit the table in absolute shock and disgust at the behaviour of the Minister. Of course, things move on and I thought I would wait.

Some of the other furphies that wafted across the chamber were: "Why should we do the work? We are only asking for the approval to go and do the work". That sounds good. That is not true. That is a load of bunkum - a word that is being used a lot. The motion asked whether it would be okay to go and do the work. That is fine; that is consistent with what this side of the house was talking about months ago. What follows hot on the heels of that motion is the Bill which will bring it into action. If members in this chamber think that all we are talking about is giving the okay to go on and do the work, they are sadly mistaken and perhaps should seek professional help.

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