Page 3161 - Week 09 - Tuesday, 22 August 2017

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

dollars in funding, but this was not included in the budget. On close questioning during estimates it was admitted that, of the $350,000 tagged as Indigenous aged-care housing, only $150,000 would be spent on an Indigenous aged-care feasibility study. The remainder went to other non-Indigenous though no doubt well-deserving community projects.

This government loves its feasibility studies, even though in Indigenous aged-care housing only five houses already exist. Perhaps this is a stalling exercise. Everyone in Australia deserves quality aged care, yet this government has constantly shown a lack of respect for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in this matter. We call on the government to back up its election promises and to commit to the development of culturally appropriate aged-care housing for the Indigenous elderly, to do so without further delay and to report such within the budget and not group this with other non-Indigenous initiatives, giving a false impression to the community.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Icon Water—Part 1.13.

MS LE COUTEUR (Murrumbidgee) (6.19): I rise to talk particularly about the role of the shareholder ministers of Icon Water. I asked a question of Mr Barr in this respect on 1 August:

How and when will the ACT government in its role as the 50 per cent owner of ActewAGL give approval to the project proceeding to statutory approvals?

The project was the waste energy project in which Icon Water is allegedly a 50 per cent participant. Mr Barr said:

As Ms Le Couteur would know, the government does not actively intervene in the decisions of the joint venture. We have representation in relation to the joint venture through board members from Icon Water. Board members from Icon Water act in accordance with the Territory-owned Corporations Act. Mr Gentleman and I are shareholders. It is important to distinguish between shareholders and board members.

The day afterwards, on 2 August, the government moved an amendment to Mr Coe’s motion that:

… in order to ensure effective commercial management of Icon Water, its shareholder Ministers provide approval only on a narrow range of significant decisions such as board appointments and major purchases or divestments …

I am concerned that these responses are simply contradictory. If the government is to make an investment in this proposed waste to energy plant, surely this comes under the classification of a major purchase or divestment? I call upon the shareholder ministers, Mr Barr and Mr Gentleman, to clarify what involvement the shareholders will have in Icon’s decision and when they will make their views known. As Mr Barr said, in order to ensure effective commercial management, the shareholder ministers

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