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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 2 Hansard (1 March) . . Page.. 434 ..

MS CARNELL (continuing):

Nobody has been in any way secretive about the fact that it took a long time to move from the heads of agreement, which is a non-binding document, through to the contract with the Raiders. It took quite a significant amount of time. I believe that is an appropriate approach. What our people in the department did was ensure that the best possible deal was done, that the Raiders stayed in Canberra and that they were willing to sign a long-term contract so they have a future in this city. That is very important to the people of Canberra because of jobs, because of our image to the rest of Australia and because of the way we feel about ourselves.

MR QUINLAN: My question is to the Treasurer. Information received, and confirmed by myself, clearly indicates that neither the Government nor the ACTEW executive has been open to negotiate any other deal than that of a proposed merger of ACTEW and AGL for an extended time. The Treasurer, in answer to my question of 15 February, stated:

Were you aware, when making that categorical assertion, that both the CEO of ACTEW and the CEO of your department had informed an interested, substantial organisation that a decision had already been made? Did you either mislead this house or are you simply not in the loop?

MR HUMPHRIES: I am certain that neither Mr Mackay nor Mr Lilley would have told anybody that a decision had been made, because the fact is that the decision is made in this place. After two unsuccessful attempts to deal with this issue, surely the last thing this Government could be accused of is not being aware that the decision is made in this place. I am sure that neither of those gentlemen would have been so stupid as to have made such a statement, and I reject it.

In terms of dealing with parties other than AGL, I recall that in the early part of last year the expression of interest process was under way, simultaneously with consideration of the GSE merger that was then being considered. When the GSE merger fell over, the reasons for which the New South Wales Government has put very clearly on the record, the attention of ACTEW turned to the question of what to do about an alternative process, and we based that on the expression of interest exercise.

Of course the Government was sensitive to the fact that there had been criticism of the Government's involvement in the two earlier exercises. Particularly at the early stages of that process, the Government was anxious for the board of ACTEW to take a steering role in determining what kind of process it should engage in to determine an appropriate commercial partner. It should be able to make recommendations to the Government in due course based on its work in that area. The Government's involvement in that process was relatively light compared with earlier exercises.

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