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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 6 Hansard (1 September) . . Page.. 1657 ..

MS CARNELL (continuing):

In addition to the written submissions, detailed discussions were held with many key stakeholders and relevant third parties, including the Australian Services Union. The consultants recognise that the findings and recommendations do not satisfy the Australian Services Union's stated requirement that the Government must retain ownership of ACTTAB. The same view is held by those opposite. If you start off with a view that there is no other place to go, how then could you have an open and appropriate report if there was no other possible outcome? The consultants consider that this position would be contrary to the evidence collected and analysed during the study.

Finally, Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, I would like to add that the Government will only support selling ACTTAB if the taxpayers get a better return from the sale than they would if the Government retains the business. Obviously, jobs are important. I have to say that comments that jobs were not involved in this report are simply wrong. In fact, the consultants have said that the only real opportunity for job growth will be if there is significant new investment in a TAB.

How will we get new investment? Well, Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, it is not going to come from government, I have to say. We had discussions at round tables and so on and it was indicated that if the TAB is to grow it may have to get involved in gambling products that are significantly more risky for government. Do those opposite suggest that we should risk taxpayers' money in risky new gambling products? Obviously it is so, Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker.

Clearly, any decision to privatise must be made by the Assembly and must take into account any associated reforms necessary to maintain the viability of ACTTAB and the racing industry in the ACT. Any such Assembly debate would only occur if, after assessing all of the available evidence, the Government believed that the sale of ACTTAB was in the best interests of the ACT community.

Nowhere today, at any time, has Mr Corbell demonstrated his claim of lack of independence or impartiality. In fact, he gave no evidence whatsoever. He tabled no documents and no parts of the terms of reference which showed categorically that the Government wanted a particular outcome. All that he and his colleagues in the Labor Party have demonstrated is a blind willingness to turn this debate about ACTTAB's future into an ideological argument. It is not the Government that has behaved ideologically in trying to come up with an outcome which ensures that ACTTAB has a viable future; it is the Labor Party that is behaving ideologically with its unwillingness to realise that its total resistance to change could mean that ACTTAB and its staff could face a very bleak future indeed.

Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, we made it very clear in the terms of reference that we put to the successful consultant - remember, this did go out to selected tender - that we wanted the consultant to look at what the options for ACTTAB were in the future, taking into account the current situation in Australia. We wanted to know the financial impact of each option. We wanted an indication of the range of funding required for things like the racing industry, the methods of payment, and the issues that arise from

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