Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 1 Hansard (17 February) . . Page.. 275 ..
MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):
options open, by calling for expressions of interest. The process of doing so was left very much to the ACTEW board to manage, while the Government was focused on the possibility of a merger with GSE.
The letter from Mr Mackay to the Chief Minister of 9 November explains adequately the process that was pursued by the Government. There was a request from the Chief Minister for the board to explain why a single select arrangement was preferred. The chief executive, Mr Mackay, answered that question at some length in this letter. I will not read the entire letter, but I will read the last part of it. It said:
The Corporation Board confirmed its support for the AGL proposal at its most recent meeting on 29 October 1999. In summary the Corporation's view is that:
1) There was no expression of interest that was superior to the AGL proposal;
2) There was major expense for both parties in assessing more than one proposal;
3) When the franchising of water and sewerage was removed from all proposals, AGL was well ahead in at least three respects.
i) it already has major operations in the ACT;
ii) it is willing to contribute actual assets to the merger (and, therefore, is not a "sale by stealth"); and
iii) the regional development aspects of its proposal are far superior to those of the other short listed contenders.
4) Any concerns about value for money could be resolved by having one or more independent valuations.
In short, the Corporation believes that the modified AGL approach is substantially superior to other proposals and it is our view that this is the only proposal that has any real chance of surviving the political process within the Assembly.
Mr Speaker, I might mention that elsewhere in the letter the other three short-listed proposals are referred to. One is from United Energy/CGE; one is from GPU, which is General Power Utilities, a United States company; and the third is from Capital Utilities. All three of those organisations are either entirely or partly foreign-based organisations. AGL was the only one that was entirely Australian owned.
Mr Quinlan: Was that a criterion, was it?
MR HUMPHRIES: No, it was not a criterion, but it was an important issue for the ACTEW board.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .