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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 3 Hansard (9 March) . . Page.. 753 ..

MR CORBELL: Mr Humphries says that we have not asked the question. I thought you were responsible for how this deal operated. (Further extension of time granted) Mr Humphries says that we have not asked the question. In effect, he is saying, "If you do no not ask, we do not have to think about it". That is not acceptable. Surely the issue of how much the directors of the new joint venture will be paid is an issue of considerable public interest. Are we going to see what has happened when other companies have been partially or fully privatised? Are we going to see a dramatic, unjustifiable leap in the amount of money paid to directors of the new company? There are no mechanisms in the facilitation Bill. Indeed, the facilitation Bill fails to address the issue of remuneration which is currently dealt with by a tribunal. It does not even talk about it.

Mr Speaker, how can the people of Canberra be asked to support such a deal when an almost inevitable consequence will be that those people running the organisation are going to get a dramatic and unjustified increase in how much they are paid? At the same time the only guarantee given to the workers is a paltry two years. The absolute moral bankruptcy of the proposal is highlighted just on that point. I would love to see Mr Rugendyke, if he is voting for this deal today, and indeed any other member in this place who is prepared to vote for this deal today, go out there and say, "We are quite happy for an increase in directors' salaries as a result of this deal going through". I ask Mr Rugendyke to seriously consider that. He knows that people in his electorate are fed up with enormous increases in salaries going to the directors and chief executives of privatised companies. There is no guarantee that that will not occur, and there is not even any mechanism for determining how much they get paid. It is going to be open slather. That is my prediction.

All of these issues are important. All of these issues are considerable and they are unanswered. This Assembly has a responsibility to protect the interests of the people of Canberra first and foremost - not the interests of AGL to secure a stake in our most profitable assets, not the interests of those people who are on the board who might get an increase in their salaries. The interests of the people of Canberra and the views of the people of Canberra remain unchanged. ACTEW should remain in public ownership.

Mr Humphries: How do you know?

MR CORBELL: Do you question it?

Mr Humphries: Yes.

MR CORBELL: You do not think people in Canberra believe that ACTEW should remain in public ownership?

Mr Humphries: How do you know?

MR CORBELL: Do you question that?

Mr Humphries: Yes.

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