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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 14 Hansard (11 December) . . Page.. 4687 ..

MR BERRY (continuing):

Let us look at the asset sales side of it for the moment. The Estimates Committee made certain recommendations in relation to asset sales. I see that the Government has not complied at this point, certainly in respect of this building, with those recommendations, as I recall them. But what are these asset sales going to fund? Does it mean that we are going to have more budget blow-outs in Health, over and above the extra $37m which appears in this year's budget in respect of Health? That would worry you a little in a system which Mrs Carnell criticised for yonks as being too expensive. The growth rate of expense in our health system since Mrs Carnell came to office has outstripped anything in my memory. It makes alarm bells ring when you see these sorts of asset sales being spoken about by the Chief Minister.

My recollection of her response just after the first advertisement appeared was that this was a just in case measure; just in case Mrs Carnell needed the cash, she was putting it out for expressions of interest so that she can call on it, I expect at short notice, to plug a hole somewhere. Well, I am not prepared to cop that. You cannot sit idly by and see somebody planning to sell off important health assets and important assets of the people just in case a hole needs to be plugged. Nobody in this Assembly would cop that sort of treatment of public assets. Already we have seen a massive asset sale in the Territory, basically to fund Mrs Carnell's popularity. I do not think Mrs Carnell was elected to sell off assets. Mrs Carnell did not go to the electorate saying that she was going to sell assets.

Mr Speaker, this is a serious issue about an important service; but it is also about the principle of asset sales, as they are important property of the people of the ACT. I urge members to support this motion. It makes sense and will force the Government to take into account the views of this Assembly before it takes any action in respect of that building. I hope that the Government takes this as a notice of intention for any other asset sales.

MR MOORE (12.22): Mr Speaker, in rising to support the motion, I would like to start by taking on board the comment that Mrs Carnell made by way of interjection, which Mr Berry did not reply to - that the sale of this building did not have to come up at the Estimates Committee because it was not for this year's estimates; it is in next year's budget. Within a couple of days we saw an advertisement for its sale. I think that does not quite paint a fair picture of what was happening at the Estimates Committee. The Estimates Committee was doing a very general verbal inquiry at that stage about exactly what we were doing with property in the ACT. We were discussing it. I was having a great deal of difficulty wrestling with the notion of sale and lease-back and whether this was a positive move or whether it was a negative move.

In the end, Mr Speaker, as it turned out, I came to the conclusion that, under the circumstances, in an on-balance decision, it has been and is a positive move. But, at that stage, we were genuinely wrestling with the problem and trying to understand what properties were for sale, what sort of property was for sale, what sort of property could be sold and what could be leased back. We were going through that process. For my friend to then say, "That one is not in this year's estimates; it is going to be in next year's" is hardly adequate, particularly when this process makes it appear that, in fact, the decision will have been made by the time it comes to next year's Estimates Committee. That is certainly how the approach appears.

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