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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 1 Hansard (2 February) . . Page.. 80 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

without offering alternatives. That is generally okay. I would not argue against it on most occasions, because the fact is that every opposition has indulged in that, including this party when in opposition from time to time.

Mr Kaine: So will you shortly.

MR HUMPHRIES: Thank you for the threat, Mr Kaine. I look forward to you moving that motion.

Mr Speaker, I think the debate today is slightly different because not only has the Opposition attacked the Government's proposition that ACTEW Corporation should be sold to secure the future superannuation liabilities of the Territory; it also has produced a report which attacks and criticises that proposition and it has put nothing in its place as an alternative. It has not put anything as an alternative. Recommendation No. 9 is the closest it comes to putting an alternative in its place and all it says is that we have a timed approach for minimising the impact on the budget and we increase the current SPU repatriation from ACTEW to above 30 per cent. That is all it says. That is not the basis for an alternative government policy.

This is like that game that we used to play as kids, 20 questions. We put up a proposition and you say yes or no. You come back with a further proposition. You just say yes or no. So far it has only been no. I think you owe it to us and to the Territory, and to the people in the gallery who have come here today to see you knock off this proposition, to say how you are going to deal with this problem.

Ms Carnell: Wayne said "Working Capital" would be the way to go.

MR HUMPHRIES: Enough said about that. That is the position we are now in. It is not like going onto the beach and kicking down some kid's sandcastle because it is a lot of fun and you feel really good afterwards and everyone has a good snigger about it. You have an obligation to put in its place something which is going to secure the future superannuation liabilities of the Territory.

Mr Corbell: We have. You just disagree with it.

MR HUMPHRIES: You have not put that in place.

Mr Corbell: You know what we put forward.

Ms Carnell: What?

MR HUMPHRIES: What, the $500m repatriation from ACTEW? Mr Speaker, this report has come down today. It does not put forward the model that was put forward by the Australia Institute. It uses the Australia Institute to demolish various aspects of the Government's proposal, but it does not say, "Adopt the Australia Institute model instead". If you had done that we would be able to compare the Government's proposition with your proposition, but it does not do that. It quite cleverly, I might say, refuses to put up an alternative because that would become the focus of the Government's comments here today.

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