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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 3 Hansard (9 March) . . Page.. 880 ..

MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Quinlan says, "Get out of it". That was what a sale right was all about, and it was rejected by this Assembly. So we cannot minimise that risk; we cannot avoid it. It has cost us 200 jobs already, and it leaves us with no viable alternative. So we end up with a situation where - - -

Mr Quinlan: The first 200 out of 50. There are only 50 in retail anyway.

MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Speaker, can I please appeal to you for some assistance in being able to make my speech without constant interjection?

MR SPEAKER: Yes, you may certainly do so.

MR HUMPHRIES: It makes no sense to talk about the separation of retail and the sale of retail as a way of resolving this problem. The separation of retail from the rest of ACTEW simply results in - - -

Mr Rugendyke: Ringbarking.

MR HUMPHRIES: As Mr Rugendyke has quite aptly said tonight, it will result in the ringbarking of ACTEW. It cannot survive viably in that set of circumstances.

I want to respond to a silly argument from Ms Tucker that private sector utilities when they are involved in public assets run those public assets down. Let us look at the record. In New South Wales, for example, the two most conspicuous problems with the running down of public assets in the last few years has been the water quality scare in Sydney and significant power blackouts in Queensland and in Auckland, New Zealand. They are the biggest stories we have seen in the last two or three years to do with the failure of public infrastructure in areas of major utilities: the failure of the water system in Sydney, the failure of power in Auckland and the failure of power in Queensland. In every one of those cases, the assets concerned have been publicly owned, publicly operated assets.

There has been a massive scare over Sydney's water quality. Sydney Water has had to pay $75m in compensation to the people of Sydney because of the failure of their maintenance of public assets. We do not hear Ms Tucker saying in this place, "There's obviously some problem with public ownership of infrastructure assets", do we? We do not hear her saying that, but that is the logical conclusion you would take from that. If you look at the running down of public assets, it has mainly been public utilities which have been responsible for that lack of attention.

Mr Quinlan: That is Professor Hilmer. Run them down, then sell them.

MR HUMPHRIES: And who appointed Professor Hilmer to do his job in the first place? The Federal Labor Government.

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