Page 2820 - Week 08 - Thursday, 24 August 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
integrity and the capacity of statutory office holders who provide exemplary service and have outstanding records of achievement and service. It is—and Mr Mulcahy drew attention to this—an independent statutory authority. It sets its own terms and conditions. The government is not responsible for the remuneration of any of its officials. But I have absolutely no doubt that the levels of remuneration are appropriate to the function and the responsibility, and are consistent with the standard of the office involved.
Mr Mulcahy: That is not consistent with your departments.
MR STANHOPE: It is not a question of being consistent with departments, it is a company. It is certainly consistent with, or perhaps even at a lesser level than, similarly placed statutory officials of that order across the board. I have no doubt about that. I think that can certainly be substantiated by the board in relation to its deliberations around the level of remuneration. I will not go on—it is extremely late—other than to say that I believe the attacks or the suggestions are unfortunate, inappropriate and not well based.
There is one point I will make. The obvious response for a member of the Liberal Party in this place to raise concerns at this juncture around TransACT and its history and future really is just a little rich. I heard and I understand the explanation, and perhaps the riders, Mr Mulcahy put on his expressions of concern in relation to TransACT. I do not disagree. But sometimes in relation to some decisions taken by predecessor governments, successor governments are faced with difficult decisions in relation to investments made that are not particularly easy to manage. To suggest that we might have baled out or engaged in some sort of fire sale in relation to an earlier investment begs a whole range of questions around how a government responds to circumstances such as those in which this government found itself when it inherited TransACT. Having said that, TransACT is a wonderful facility.
Mr Mulcahy: It just does not make any money.
MR STANHOPE: Yes, but to the extent that it is not a money spinner and represents, I think, some risks into the future, if one is to find positives, there are positives to be found in relation to the extent to which Canberra is wired—it has access to broadband—and the extent to which TransACT has provided a tremendous utility for residents and businesses in the territory. It is not all gloom and doom. It is not as if this has had no positive aspects or spin. It has, in the context of the service. Mr Mulcahy makes a good point around its future. Mr Service, in his responses at estimates, did not run away from that. He was very open and very honest in his assessment of its future profitability or return to Actew or to the government.
Proposed expenditure agreed to.
Proposed expenditure—Part 1.22—Cultural Facilities Corporation, $6,410,000 (net cost of outputs) and $3,261,000 (capital injection), totalling $9,671,000.
MR MULCAHY (Molonglo) (4.30 am): I will literally be one minute. It always seems we get to the cultural facilities area towards the end of proceedings, wherever we are. I note the article in City News that reflected the Chief Minister’s presence at the “Illuminations” exhibition, which I was not able to attend. But they have highlighted
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .