Page 1480 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 10 April 2013
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
which seeks an immediate full performance audit, let me be very clear that the reason is that there is already a perfectly adequate audit process underway, and I believe it is unnecessary to request an additional process at this point in time.
Through the various enquiries and investigations that are underway I believe we will get to the bottom of the issues that have been raised, there will be a public account of what has occurred and a thorough public debate about what the best course of action is to address this. The politics of this are reasonably clear as well, and Mr Hanson is no doubt going to elaborate on those when he speaks again. But the bottom line is that there are concerns about ACTEW. That is a view held across the Assembly to various degrees on various issues. There are, of course, a number of ways to go about getting to the bottom of those issues. Mr Hanson has put forward one way; the two shareholders have a series of other steps in place. You can have a different view on that, but I think to simply describe taking one approach or the other as some sort of cover-up or not allowing full scrutiny is simply a political stance by Mr Hanson.
Mr Hanson: You’re a bit paranoid about this.
MADAM DEPTUY SPEAKER: Mr Hanson! You have spoken and you will get another opportunity.
MR RATTENBURY: It is simply an exercise in political positioning. It is important to look at the bottom line, and in the amended motion we will have a series of reports that will be made publicly available, and the date on which they will be publicly available is specified. There can be no more accountable a process than having those set out. It is certainly far more concrete, far more specific, than simply saying we want some broad ranging inquiry which could take a very significant amount of time. What we have here are commitments to delivering specific things in specific time frames, which I think will mean that, in the much shorter term, the Assembly will be able to look closely at these issues and evaluate whether we need to take further action.
I do not think this matter is closed; I am sure the Assembly will be coming back to addressing these matters further at a later date. I certainly welcome that debate, because ACTEW is an incredibly important corporation in this territory. It is a large corporation; it is a significant government asset and, therefore, a significant asset of the taxpayers and ratepayers of the territory. We rely on ACTEW to do a good job. The matters that are floating around are of concern, and it is quite appropriate that this Assembly scrutinise those issues, those accusations, those concerns in considerable detail. I believe the amendments that I am going to support will move us along quite well in undertaking that scrutiny.
MR SESELJA (Brindabella) (5.12): What a surprise! We have the Labor Party and the Greens member getting together to oppose some genuine scrutiny on this issue. What a shock! I am sure Mr Hanson will be shocked, having gone into this, that Mr Rattenbury has decided to side with the Labor Party in stopping the Auditor-General from actually having a look at this issue.
The reason Mr Hanson’s motion should be supported and the reason he has had to bring it forward is because the shareholders have not done their job. Let us be clear on
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video