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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 2 Hansard (20 May) . . Page.. 366 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

Indeed, earlier today Ms Tucker introduced into the house legislation that attempts to change back a situation that was changed by the last Assembly. In most instances that is a completely acceptable and responsible course for any member in this place to take. But when it comes to the sale of a Territory-owned corporation we do not have that choice. We do not have the option of coming into a new Assembly, maybe in 31/2 years' time, and saying, "We do not like the fact that the previous Government privatised, say, ACTTAB; and we are going to unprivatise it". It does not work that way. The asset is sold and it is gone forever.

Mr Humphries: You can acquire it again.

MR CORBELL: I am interested to hear the Government's interjection that it can be acquired again.

Mr Humphries: Have you heard of nationalisation?

MR CORBELL: I am interested to hear that Mr Humphries is the proponent of the nationalisation of assets. We will note that, Mr Humphries. We might even send you an application form for one of our policy committees.

The reality, Mr Speaker, is this: It is nigh impossible to regain an asset of the value of, say, ACTEW or ACTTAB once it is sold. The enormous investment that has been put into these assets over many years will not be able to be met by a future Territory government - certainly not in the foreseeable future. For this reason - and I know that the conservatives hate this - we want them to provide us with real, valid, legitimate reasons as to why an asset owned by the people of Canberra should be sold. We do not want them to present some weird, made-up excuse out of a unit they developed with, say, competitive neutrality in mind. We do not want them to simply bow before the altar of competition policy and say, "This is what has to be done". We want them to present real reasons. The community expects them to present real reasons. If they have real reasons, a privatisation can be considered and, if a majority of members in this place support such a proposal, enacted.

But, Mr Speaker, it should not be done purely for political purposes. It should not be done purely on political grounds. It should not be done simply because the Government has a short-term problem with its budget. For that reason, Mr Speaker, there should be genuine bipartisan support. Everyone in this community owns these assets, and there should be a clear consensus about whether or not an asset should be sold. We already make provision for two-thirds on a number of other issues. Why not on an issue which is central to the potential future wellbeing of the Territory, in terms of its economic health, through deciding on whether or not ownership of assets owned by the community should be retained in public hands or otherwise?

Mr Speaker, I have today given notice to the Clerk of the Assembly of an amendment to the standing orders that will make provision for a two-thirds majority, and the Assembly, in due course, will consider and vote on that motion. If members in this place are not prepared to support a two-thirds majority, they should be prepared at least to support this Bill which provides for the elected representatives of the people of the Australian Capital Territory to decide on the future ownership of the assets which they have put money into

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