Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 2 Hansard (1 March) . . Page.. 436 ..
MR SPEAKER: Order! Mr Quinlan, you will have the opportunity to ask a supplementary question.
MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Speaker, you have to ask what is the point of continually going back to first - - -
Mr Berry: Are you asking us?
MR HUMPHRIES: I am asking a rhetorical question, Mr Berry, so you can relax. What is the point of constantly going down one path, going back again and then going down another path and going back again? All these things amount to the expenditure of large amounts - - -
Mr Quinlan: Because there are hundreds of millions of dollars involved.
MR HUMPHRIES: That is exactly why ACTEW decided to pursue an option which they put before this Assembly on the basis that it makes some sense. Is the Opposition telling us that this ENERGEX proposal is the big one? Is this the one that they will support? Finally there is an option that the ACT Opposition will support.
Mr Quinlan: It indicates other people are interested.
MR HUMPHRIES: Lots of people have been interested, Mr Quinlan, over a long period of time. None of them appeared to have any chance of getting past you in the past. Why should this one be any different?
Mr Quinlan: The door is shut on them. You told this house it wasn't.
MR HUMPHRIES: You tell me that the ENERGEX proposal is acceptable to the ACT Opposition and will be supported by the ACT Opposition, and I will be interested. But so far I have not heard anything which is supported by the ACT Opposition. Until I do, I am going to pursue the present course of action which, on the basis of advice from the ACTEW board, puts a realistic, viable option before the ACT community, one which I believe we should accept.
MR QUINLAN: In his response, Mr Humphries referred to the evaluation of the expressions of interest. Mrs Carnell has already told the house that they are not to be treated as tenders; they are only expressions of interest. Does the Treasurer know by what evaluation criteria these expressions of interest were rated so that AGL came out on top? For example, did they include a provision that they must have substantial asset holdings in the ACT, which would eliminate nearly everybody - if not everybody, everybody bar AGL?
MR HUMPHRIES
: The evaluation was conducted by ACTEW. As I recall, the press release that Mr Quinlan was waving around yesterday from the ACT Government listed the criteria that ACTEW was using to evaluate the different expressions of interest. If that is not the case, I am happy to table it. I understand there is no secret about that. I am happy to produce it. As far as the Government is concerned, the process involved
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .