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

None . . Page.. 847 ..

ACTEW is now being corporatised was passed by the Government in 1990, at which time it was proposed to corporatise ACTEW. More recently, corporatisation has been a widely accepted principle across all governments in Australia, Liberal and Labor, for making government business enterprises more accountable and efficient in the provision of their respective services.

It should be noted, Mr Speaker, that throughout Australia all major utilities - I state again, all major utilities - water, gas, electricity and telecommunications, have been or are being corporatised. It is equally worth noting that ACTEW is the only major utility in Australia which employs public servants. The recent Industry Commission report known as the Hilmer report, and this year's COAG agreement on the implementation of competition within the utilities industry, further reiterate the need for corporatisation. Throughout all of these processes the benefits and advantages of corporatisation have been widely enunciated, and consultation with the community has been extensive.

The corporatisation of ACTEW and a number of other ACT government business enterprises was a key election platform of the Liberals at the last election. We all know that. It has been no secret. It has not come out of left field all of a sudden, overnight; our policy has been widely known for many years. Mr Speaker, we are not alone. The New South Wales ALP, the Federal ALP and the Queensland ALP have agreed on, and have noted the benefits of, corporatisation. It is widely known. It seems that the only political parties that do not accept the benefits of corporatisation are the ACT Labor Party, because of some philosophical bent against corporatisation anyway, and the Greens.

For Ms Horodny to stand up in this place and suggest that this has come out of left field, with no community consultation, with no consultation with the Greens, is farcical. With respect, it is a nonsense. You may not agree with corporatisation per se; but to stand up here and say that you have not been consulted, that you have not been given every opportunity to ask whatever questions you wanted to ask, is a nonsense. Other members, with respect, have not had the same experience. Mr Osborne did not have any problems in getting his amendments drafted. Mr Moore did not have any problems in getting his amendments drafted. I note that Mr Whitecross has a reef of amendments, most to decorporatise ACTEW; but that is another story. He is allowed to have a different point of view from the Government and other members of this Assembly. Nobody else seems to have had any problems in getting their amendments drafted. I might say, by the way, that the only people who gave us the courtesy of seeing their amendments or their intended amendments prior to late this morning or early this afternoon were the Greens, Mr Osborne and Mr Moore. There has been plenty of opportunity. This Bill has been there for about 3½ weeks now. The Liberal Party's policy on corporatisation has been out there for years, for heaven's sake. t is not as if it has come in from left field.

Ms Horodny also commented that Australian business managers are not noted for innovative thinking. What a slur on the reputation of Australian business managers, for heaven's sake - that we are not producing innovative thinkers! Why? Because the Greens happen to be against the form of coporatisation that this Government intends to attempt

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