Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 8 Hansard (29 October) . . Page.. 2453 ..
MS TUCKER (1.26), in reply: I would like to make a couple of concluding comments. Basically, I believe that what has just happened has made this Assembly totally - - -
Mr Moore: I take a point of order. Ms Tucker does not have the right to comment on what has happened. That would be a reflection on a vote of the Assembly. She can continue to talk about her perceptions, but she cannot do that.
MS TUCKER: Mr Moore apparently does not know what I was going to talk about. I was going to talk about the whole debate.
MR SPEAKER: Ms Tucker, you are closing the debate on your motion, please.
MS TUCKER: I am closing the debate on my motion, yes. I want to respond to a couple of issues raised in the debate. We have seen arguments put forward by the Liberal Party and by Mr Rugendyke and Mr Osborne which have no real substance in them. I am looking forward to giving them an opportunity to actually clarify their statements. As I said, Mr Osborne will have that opportunity this afternoon if we give support to that.
Mr Humphries said he was concerned because the terms of reference were so broad. I just want to ask members here which of these are so broad that we should not be looking at them when we are considering selling ACTEW? Is it too broad to be looking at the impact of privatisation on the ACT budget? Is it too broad to be looking at employment levels, the ACT regional economy, consumer rights, the maintenance and enhancement of environment protection and the achievement of environmental objectives, the maintenance and enhancement of social equity within the ACT community, the maintenance and enhancement of service standards and the minimisation of risks of disruption of services? Is it too broad to be looking at whether a sufficiently strong regulatory framework could be established to minimise the negative impacts of privatisation, the interstate and overseas experience with privatisation and any other related matter? Maybe that is too broad. Maybe it was the "any other related matter" that was too broad for Mr Humphries.
I would suggest that all these concerns which have not been dealt with by the other reviews and consultants' reports on this issue are absolutely critical to this debate before we are asked to vote on this issue. I ask Mr Humphries, if he believes that he can argue that these things are too broad, to explain that to the ACT community, as should Mr Rugendyke and Mr Osborne. I still cannot believe that Mr Rugendyke has not spoken on this issue.