Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 11 Hansard (20 October) . . Page.. 3366 ..
MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):
that problem? In fact, where is the Opposition's recognition that there is a problem in the first place? How are you going to deal with the problems, which have been very clearly put on the table, of ACTEW's increasingly fragile position with respect to competition in a much more dynamic electricity retail market?
Mr Quinlan: I would address that problem and not try to flog the whole lot of it.
MR SPEAKER: Order, please! Mr Quinlan, if you wish to debate this matter you had better put something on the notice paper.
MR HUMPHRIES: I greatly value Mr Quinlan's contribution but I think the community deserves more than interjections saying what the Opposition is going to do about the problem with ACTEW. So far it has just been saying, "We will sit on the sidelines and whatever you say we are likely to say 'No, we do not like it but we are not going to give you too many clues about what we will do as an alternative' ".
Mr Stanhope: We won't sell it.
Ms Carnell: Nor will we.
MR SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Stanhope: You won't now. You tried that and you lost.
MR SPEAKER: Would you all be quiet, please!
MR HUMPHRIES: It is very easy to say, "We are not going to do this". What are you going to do? What is the positive you are going to bring to this debate? We heard that the Opposition was opposed to ripping too much money out of ACTEW the other day; that the idea of repatriating too much money from ACTEW would be a terrible thing to do. Yet they supported recommendations from the Australia Institute when they were put forward in the context of the ACTEW debate to take $500m odd out of ACTEW.
Mr Quinlan: Over what period?
MR SPEAKER: Order, please! This is not twenty questions.
MR HUMPHRIES: We are exploring alternatives. We want to find a way forward for ACTEW, and I look forward to the Opposition taking some constructive role in that debate, not just criticising everything the Government does.
MR CORBELL: Mr Speaker, my question is to the Minister for Urban Services. During the debate in the Assembly last Thursday on the disallowance of variation No. 94 to the Territory Plan relating to the Federal Golf Club housing proposal, the Minister said: