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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 1 Hansard (2 February) . . Page.. 75 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

How are we going to do that? Are we going to cut essential services? Are we going to borrow that? Option 3 is very similar as well. I do not think those are particularly viable options.

It is interesting to see recommendation No. 9, which really does not recommend very much at all. It urges us to utilise an income stream from ACTEW that is already being utilised towards essential government services such as police, paying the salaries of teachers, nurses and the like. When one comes to the closing comments of the report, finally the committee concludes that the superannuation liability can and must be tackled. Well, that is good. It recognises that, but it does not suggest how. All it says is that the simple proposal to sell off ACTEW to meet the debt is not the optimal solution. It offers no other alternative.

Mr Deputy Speaker, we do have a new national electricity market. Already, ACTEW does not have 100 per cent of the electricity market. It will continue to lose its market share. Already, whatever happens, ACTEW is going to be shedding staff. Already we know that it has to be more efficient. That is certainly something that has to happen if it continues in government ownership.

We have been told that a very good performance by ACTEW would be to retain 70 per cent of the contestable market. A bad performance would see it lose more than 50 per cent. What does that do in terms of revenue coming in? How is ACTEW going to be able to continue to pay significant dividends, and to pay off significant loans that it is proposed it undertakes by those who would have us not sell it? How is that going to occur?

What will occur, Mr Deputy Speaker, if item (iv) of recommendation No. 9 is not feasible? That proposal is to utilise the income stream from ACTEW to contribute towards the unfunded liability. What if the income stream is considerably down as a result of what is occurring around Australia and what is affecting ACTEW, ACTEW being one of the smallest companies around? That is a very real problem, Mr Deputy Speaker, and no-one who is opposed to this sale has really come up with a viable alternative to counter that.

What are the benefits if we do have a sale now? To start with, ACTEW is going to have to change regardless of the outcome, and there have been fundamental changes to the market in which the corporation operates. If ACTEW is to remain as a profitable asset it has to change, and if it is privatised it will have the opportunity to become part of a larger, richer organisation.

Events in recent days, with the sale of Victoria's first gas business, have shown that the market for Australian utilities is strong. There was $1.6 billion for that, Mr Deputy Speaker - about $200m more than the most optimistic forecast. That is money that that community can use. This means the Government would have to have the ability to negotiate with a potential buyer on very favourable terms to the ACT. Not only would current employment levels be secure, but there also would be the potential, in spite of what I someone opposite said, to require the company head office to be located in the

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